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

Goyal v Goyal [2016] EWFC 50

Sep 29, 2018, 21:14 PM
Financial remedies – Pension sharing – Overseas pension – s24B, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
The background to this case is well known to the parties. It has been going on for far too long and so far as I can tell there is virtually no money left. A short background summary of the issues in hand can be found by the uninformed reader in the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 29 July 2016 ([2016] EWCA Civ 792), available on Bailii.
Slug : goyal-v-goyal-2016-ewfc-50
Meta Title : Goyal v Goyal [2016] EWFC 50
Meta Keywords : Financial remedies – Pension sharing – Overseas pension – s24B, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 4, 2016, 09:41 AM
Article ID : 114463

(Family Division, Mostyn J, 4 November 2016)

Financial remedies – Pension sharing – Overseas pension – s24B, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

The wife’s application for a pension-sharing order failed in limine.

In financial remedy proceedings following divorce the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in an Indian pension fund to the wife. The judge dismissed the husband’s claim that he had transferred his interest to a third party. The wife had previously been awarded a lump sum of £19,000.

The Court of Appeal set aside the pension order and directed that a rehearing should take place.

Mostyn J held that pension sharing under s 24B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 could not be ordered in relation to a foreign pension. It was a basic rule of statutory interpretation that, although an enactment might be expressed in general terms, the area for which it was law, had to exclude territories over which Parliament lacked jurisdiction. The authorities plainly upheld the proposition that there was a presumption against extra-territoriality. The application of the presumption against the extra-territorial effect to the powers under s 24B was an inescapable reading of the legislation as a whole and was reinforced by the procedural rules applicable to pension sharing. That procedure could only work in the context of the sharing of domestic pensions.

Other routes could be adopted to achieve direct sharing of a foreign pension but the court had to be satisfied that the foreign pension provider would give effect to any agreement or consent order. In this instance the wife had not provided any evidence that a pension sharing order would be likely to be enforced in India.

The wife’s application failed in limine.


Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWFC 50
Case No: FD12D02732

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

04/11/2016


B e f o r e :


MR JUSTICE MOSTYN
____________________


Between:

Ankita Goyal 
Applicant

- and -


Amit Goyal
Respondent
____________________


The Applicant appeared in person
James Turner QC (instructed by Forsters LLP) appeared pro bono for the Respondent

Hearing date: 17 October 2016 
____________________

Goyal v Goyal [2016] EWFC 50

JUDGMENT
Categories :
  • Financial Remedies
  • Judgments
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from