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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, 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...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: W v H [2013] EWHC 3755 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-w-v-h-2013-ewhc-3755-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 12, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 104289

(Family Division, Parker J, 29 November 2013)

The husband and wife were married for 25 years. The husband had three children including IB. The husband owned the majority of shares in a company and minority shareholdings were owned by the wife and IB. Prior to the sale of the company the minority shareholdings were transferred from the wife and IB to the husband. Following that a number of cash transfers were made by the husband to IB. When the wife petitioned for divorce she applied to set aside the transfers under s 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in order to satisfy her claim for financial remedies.

An ex parte freezing order over the husband's assets was obtained and IB was joined as a respondent to the proceedings. However, during the proceedings the husband became ill and was unable to provide instructions to his legal advisors. The Official Solicitor became involved. The district judge set aside just one of the transfers and dismissed the application in relation to the other transfers. IB applied to the High Court and the order was set aside.

The wife thereafter applied under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order to restore the husband's financial position and for an order waiving compliance with various procedural requirements. The husband died before the hearing took place.

The parties agreed that the right to pursue an application to judgment did not exist beyond their joint lives and there was no longer jurisdiction under s 37 of the 1973 Act. The husband made no provision for the wife in his will. The wife, therefore, sought to replace her application under s 423 of the 1986 Act with an application under s 10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

The wife could still be assisted by s 423 of the 1986 Act. It did not require formal insolvency, merely the existence of a debt. The husband or his estate in this case could be characterised as the debtor and the wife as a victim of the transaction. The test under that section was wider than that of s 10 of the 1975 Act and the remedy was different. The wife was thus far unable to make a claim under the 1975 Act as probate had not been granted. The application under s 423 of the 1986 Act would not be dismissed because in the absence of a freezing order prior to the wife's claim, dissipation might take place. This application would be made in support of an application under the 1975 Act. Injunctive relief would be required prior to the wife's issue of claim.

 

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