Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

Flipside of Myerson v Myerson

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
The Court of Appeal has ruled a West Yorkshire woman cannot claim more after her ex-husband's shares quadrupled in value.
Slug : flipside-of-myerson-v-myerson
Meta Title : Flipside of Myerson v Myerson
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 26, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89627

The Court of Appeal has ruled a West Yorkshire woman cannot claim more after her ex-husband's shares quadrupled in value.

Kim Walkden, 47, originally received a cash settlement totalling £482,000 in 2006, mainly based on the £800,000 value placed on her husband's share of the timber company Triesse and was also awarded maintenance of £1,100 a month.

However, Mrs Walkden sought to renegotiate her divorce settlement from her former husband, Martin, after the timber company was sold for more than £3.7 million in 2007.

Her lawyers argued that as a result of the higher value, Mr Walkden's share of the couple's assets had risen to 82% from 58% while Mrs Walkden's share had fallen from 42% to 18%.

In June last year, Mrs Walkden was given permission at York County Court to seek a renegotiation of the original settlement.

Mr Walkden, 47, won his appeal yesterday on the ground that his situation was no different from that of the Brian Myerson, whose attempt to renegotiate his £9.5m divorce settlement on the grounds that the recession had badly affected his finances was rejected by the court of appeal in April.

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Elias, said none of the legal requirements that would allow Mrs Walkden to reopen the hearing over division of assets had been met.

He added that he was handing down his judgment because the issues in the case "were of some general importance".

Lord Justice Wall, noted that Mrs Walkden had reached an agreement with her former husband whereby her maintenance payments were converted to a capital sum and the couple had now achieved a clean break.

The judge said the case could be described "as the flipside of the decision of this court in Myerson v Myerson".

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