Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
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