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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
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....
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Shield v Shield [2014] EWHC 23 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:00 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-shield-v-shield-2014-ewhc-23-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 7, 2014, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 104663

(Family Division, Nicholas Francis QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, 17 January 2014)

In financial remedy proceedings following divorce, a preliminary issue trial was scheduled in order to determine whether the most substantial matrimonial asset, namely, company shares of a family business held by the husband and wife, were held on trust for the intervenor, one of their children.

The husband and wife were married for 43 years and had four adult children. When the family business fell into decline, the intervenor took over the running of the business and turned it around. In return he claimed it was agreed that he would receive a 50% interest in the company shares and stood to inherit a further 50% upon the death of the husband.

In accordance with the authority of Drake v Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826, there was an agreement to which the husband, wife and intervenor were all parties that the intervenor would take over the running of the company in return for shares. However, it was clear that they did not reach a binding agreement regarding the receipt of shares via the husband and wife's wills as there was clear evidence that tax advice was that they should not do so. The beneficial interest in the husband's shares remained with the husband.

There was no agreement, no common intention trust or proprietary estoppel and no case as to detriment was made out. The intervenor's claim for a declaration that the shares were held on trust for him failed.

 

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