Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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