Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
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