Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Divorce and Recession Part 2: Creditors, Competitors and Bankruptcy

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : divorce-and-recession-part-2-creditors-competitors-and-bankruptcy
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 2, 2009, 11:23 AM
Article ID : 85911

Simon Calhaem, Barrister, 29 Bedford Row

Part 2 of this article assesses the impact of creditors on the ancillary relief process. To update Part I, published in April [2008] Fam Law 301, in the recent decision of Myerson v Myerson (No 2) [2009] EWCA Civ 282, [2009] 2 FLR (forthcoming), the Court of Appeal refused the husband's application to appeal a consent order on a Barder basis as a result of 'the husband's fortune [having] been hit by the earthquake of the global financial crisis'. The decision is based on the following grounds:

(a) the circumstances were a change in asset values will justify a Barder appeal are 'very few and far between';
(b) the order was made by consent;
(c) the consent order was in part speculative (of the husband's own assessment of asset values);
(d) the value of his shares may still go up;
(e) (and most importantly) because the payment of the lump sum was spread over 5 instalments the husband had power to vary the quantum of the unpaid lump sums (see Part I - Asset protection: drafting).

Thorpe LJ held that '... the natural processes of price fluctuation, whether in houses, shares, or any other property, and however dramatic, do not satisfy the Barder test.' Guidance for practitioners comes from point (e) above. Where there are uncertainties as to liquidity, the capital order should often be phrased as a lump sum by instalments, in order to permit a variation application in the event of economic collapse.

To read the rest of this article, see June [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from