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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Davies v Davies [2012] EWCA Civ 1641

Sep 29, 2018, 18:35 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-davies-v-davies-2012-ewca-civ-1641
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 20, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101195

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Elias, Rimer LJJ, 11 December 2012)

The husband sought to appeal the order granting the wife a lump sum of £2.2m in addition to the final matrimonial home. The husband proposed she should be entitled to a lump sum of £1.5m.

During proceedings the husband, who owned a hotel business, claimed that the wife had worked as no more than a receptionist intermittently throughout the marriage. The wife however, contended that the status of the business had risen dramatically due to her input.

The judge preferred the evidence of the wife and held that her contribution to the increase in the family's net worth was exceptional. However, the valuations provided on behalf of both the husband and wife were not in agreement.

The judge had fallen into error in effectively finding the business was of no value at the date of his acquisition however the ultimate result was not infected by that error.

Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

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