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: DR v GR and Others (Financial Remedy: Variation of Overseas Trust) [2013] EWHC 1196 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:07 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-dr-v-gr-and-others-financial-remedy-variation-of-overseas-trust-2013-ewhc-1196-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 21, 2013, 02:54 AM
Article ID : 102571

(Family Division, Mostyn J, 10 May 2013)

The husband and wife were married for 33 years. The husband claimed he had substantial assets prior to the marriage but had not provided any evidence of the extent. The value of assets which were in existence at the commencement of the marriage was £316,880. In financial remedy proceedings following divorce the parties had assets of £2.5m, £1.3m of which were held in a post-nuptial settlement comprising of a Jersey discretionary trust which through a company structure owned two retirement villages, operated by the husband as well as other assets.

The beneficiaries under the trust were the husband, his spouse, and any issue from that relationship. The wife applied for a variation of the settlement pursuant to s 24(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and sought an outright transfer from the trust assets.

On the facts, applying the principles in the line of authorities including BJ v MJ (Financial Remedies: Overseas Trusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 667, the entire trust structure comprised a variable post-nuptial settlement that the court was empowered to deal directly with and to make orders in respect of the trust assets owned by the companies.

The wife's proposal to have one of the retirement villages transferred outright to her was completely unrealistic as she lacked the capital and experience necessary to run a village.

The wife would receive a liquidated sum of £1,229,965, which equated to 49% of the assets, comprising of the matrimonial property, a sum owed to her by the daughter and an outright payment from the settlement of £391,000. The husband would have 2 years to raise the latter sum subject to a 5% interest rate and the trust would be varied to remove the wife as a beneficiary and a director of any of the companies.

 

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