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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

Not for sharing: passive growth, post-separation accrual, and post-separation earning capacity

Jan 10, 2020, 10:16 AM
Now that the dust has settled after Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727, [2018] 2 FLR 406 this article reviews the recent series of reported cases dealing with the identification of non-matrimonial assets and the limits to the sharing principle.
Slug :
Meta Title : Not for sharing: passive growth, post-separation accrual, and post-separation earning capacity
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 10, 2020, 00:00 AM
Article ID :

Kate Armstrong, Dere Street Barristers

Now that the dust has settled after Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727, [2018] 2 FLR 406 this article reviews the recent series of reported cases dealing with the identification of non-matrimonial assets and the limits to the sharing principle. The article considers the application of the principles to three interrelated themes raised in the recent case law:

(1)     Post-separation income (Waggott (above); O’Dwyer v O’Dwyer [2019] EWHC 1838 (Fam), [2019] 2 FLR 1020)
(2)     Passive growth (IX v IY (Financial Remedies: Unmatched Contributions) [2018] EWHC 3053 (Fam), [2019] 2 FLR 449)
(3)     Post-separation accruals (C v C (Post-Separation Accrual) [2018] EWHC 3186 (Fam), [2019] 1 FLR 939)

Two points emerge: First, a willingness to identify non-matrimonial property and to protect it from the sharing principle, and second a flexibility as to whether a broad brush or a more arithmetical approach is appropriate in identifying what of the available assets should be shared and if so, how.


The full article will be published in the January issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from