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

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from