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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

ANCILLARY RELIEF: G v G [2009] EWHC 494 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : g-v-g-2009-ewhc-494-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 21, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87131

(Family Division; Singer J; 17 March 2009)

Following a relatively short marriage, involving cohabitation for over 7 years, with one child, the couple separated and the wife sought ancillary relief. The wife had no real earning capacity; the husband was a broker with a complicated remuneration package, including two employee benefit trusts from which the husband was entitled to borrow, but which had an overall positive balance. The husband was ordered to pay the wife maintenance pending suit of £7,500 pm; it later emerged that he had concealed changes in his remuneration arrangements following the separation, in particular the creation of investment funds into which certain discretionary bonuses were to be paid, with the aim of ensuring that the wife should not share in any wealth acquired post-separation. It also emerged that the wife had been reluctant to disclose certain information, including the fact that by the hearing she was pregnant with another man's child.

The approach that must be taken in this case was to attempt to evaluate the available assets as at the date of the hearing, and then to consider their nature and provenance. If they derived from pre-marriage acquisition or gift, or from intra-marriage gift or inheritance, then, subject to needs requirements, fairness might dictate that they be left wholly or partially out of the dividing exercise. A discretionary exercise must also be applied to the question when the clock was to stop in a case in which one spouse continued to accrue savings or wealth from earnings or elsewhere after the marriage. The couple were to share the capital assets equally, leaving both parties with assets worth a little over £1 million. The surplus value of the two employee benefit trusts was also to be shared equally, and the wife was to receive just under £120,000 in respect of this. However, it would not be fair to require the husband to share the value of the investment fund that contained discretionary bonuses earned more than 12 months after the couple finally separated. Given that the husband's income had been considerably larger than that disclosed at the time that maintenance pending suit had been set, there would be a retrospective variation of maintenance pending suit; the wife was to receive an additional £70,000 in respect of this. Taking into account the Court of Appeal authorities stating that cohabitation was not to be equated with marriage, this was not a case for a clean break; the wife would not be able to adjust without undue hardship to the termination of her financial dependence on the husband within a foreseeably definable term. The husband was to pay maintenance to the wife of £125,000 pa; although the wife's annual budget figure had been only £104,400, needs were not the only or the strict test. This maintenance award would result in a net income for the wife of about £100,000 pa.

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