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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
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...
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