Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES/COSTS: Alyami v Musallam

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-costs-alyami-v-musallam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 4, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101103

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Patten LJJ, David Richards J, 28 November 2012)

The family moved to London to enable the husband to study. He had no assets of his own and the family was supported by the wife who had received a considerable inheritance after her father's death. Following the breakdown of the marriage the children lived with the wife and she paid the husband interim periodical payments including provision for his legal costs.

The husband's costs amounted to £500,000 after divorce proceedings in Saudi Arabia and England, applications under both the Children Act 1989 and the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The judge ordered that a property should be purchased in London by the wife to facilitate contact between the father and children. Upon the sale of the property once the children had attained the age of 19 the proceeds would be split between the husband and wife. In respect of the husband's costs the wife was ordered to pay £50,000. The husband appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. The husband's costs had been disproportionate to the issues at task. The judge had a wide discretion and gave a fully reasoned judgment. The order for a London property had secured the husband's position against his creditors when in reality he would be entitled to half the proceeds of sale at a future date.

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