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

ANCILLARY RELIEF: H v H [2008] EWHC 935 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : h-v-h-2008-ewhc-935-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 26, 2008, 06:08 AM
Article ID : 88083

(Family Division; Moylan J; 26 March 2008)

In a case in which the marriage had lasted 14 years but the husband's business had been running for over 33 years, the judge awarded the wife £1.5 million, only 32% of the total assets but 67% of the non-business wealth, plus periodical payments of £60,000 pa for herself and £20,000 pa for the children, expressing concern at the forensic approach of the parties. The court was engaged in a broad analysis not a detailed accounting exercise. The purpose of valuations was to assist the court in testing the fairness of the proposed outcome, not to ensure mathematical/accounting accuracy, invariably no more than a chimera. Further, to seek to construct the whole edifice of an award on a business valuation, which was no more than a broad or even very broad guide, was to risk creating an edifice that was unsound and hence likely to be unfair. The parties had adopted extreme positions; this did not assist the court, or the parties themselves, in seeking to achieve a result that was fair both in outcome and in the manner in which it had been achieved. This was not a clean break case; both parties had been seeking to achieve an unrealistic outcome. Where there was both a capital award and a continuing order for periodical payments, the assessmet of the fairness of the capital award became more complex.

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