Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: N v N and A Trust [2005] EWHC 2908 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : n-v-n-and-a-trust-2005-ewhc-2908-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 16, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86449

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 16 December 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 856

The matrimonial property had been purchased by a company owned by a family trust based in Guernsey during the parties engagement and prior to their marriage for their occupation under a tenancy arrangement. The husband was the grandson of the trust settler and was now the sole beneficiary.

In terms of ongoing provision for the husband and wife during their marriage, it was hard to think of any arrangement that was more ongoing than the provision of a matrimonial home. The intervening tenancy arrangement did not alter the character and true legal relationship between the husband and the trustee such that it was no longer capable of being a nuptial settlement. The purchase of the property and its subsequent use throughout the marriage constituted an anti-nuptial settlement capable of variation pursuant to s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

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