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...
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : murphy-v-murphy
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 18, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86149

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Smith and Patten LJJ; 18 September 2009)

The husband and wife were both American; the relationship began in the USA, but the wife followed the husband when the husband's job required him to move to Europe. The couple were married in Ireland, and later lived in England. After 7 ? years of marriage, not long after the husband was made unemployed, the couple separated; both were about 40 years old.

In the ancillary relief proceedings the judge decided that the wife should receive 65% of the assets. In making the actual award, the judge took into account a deferred compensation payment scheme, even though it had been recorded as not a liquid fund, and used the wife's schedule of assets, which had been before the court to support the wife's argument that the husband had wasted £2 million of family money. The husband appealed. The monetary terms in which the judge had expressed the 65/35 division of assets had been incorrect. The judge should not simply have adopted the wife's schedule including the necessary calculations: the husband had not, as alleged by the judge, been vague in giving his evidence; the husband's final affidavit had been extremely clear about the limited nature of the value of the deferred compensation scheme. The wife should have cross-examined the husband on this point if she had wished to challenge his evidence; the wife's schedules were inconsistent with the evidence. The attributed value of the deferred compensation payment scheme would be taken out of the calculation of their respective shares. On the facts the husband had not wasted assets as alleged by the wife.

The judge had overstated the importance of the wife's needs, given that this had been an 8-year childless marriage and that both had a chance for a fresh start. However, the judge had been entitled to reject equality of division given the future earning capacity of both parties, and the desirability of a clean break.

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