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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

FINANCIAL PROVISION: R v R (Financial Provision: Confiscation and Restraint Orders)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : r-v-r-financial-provision-confiscation-and-restraint-orders
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 3, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88691

(Family Division; Bennett J; 3 November 2005) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

The husband was convicted in Holland of drug offences, and all his assets made the subject of confiscation and restraint orders. Following the divorce, the wife applied for financial provision.

Although the judge made a finding of fact that the wife was fully aware of the husband's substantial criminal activity, and was heavily involved, he awarded the wife a lump sum, designed to house her and the young child of the family, which drew in part upon the assets acknowledged to be tainted by the crime. The judge made a finding that there were hidden assets from which the husband could pay the confiscation order, but considered the possibility that the husband might be unable to pay the confiscation order as a result of the award to the wife and concluded that that risk was outweighed by the possibility of serious deprivation to the wife and child if a sum were awarded which was insufficient to house them. The public interest did not demand that the wrongdoing of the husband be visited upon the wife to such an extent that might imperil the welfare of the child.

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