Spotlight
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
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...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, 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 misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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