Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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