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: R v R (Financial Relief: Company Valuation)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : r-v-r-financial-relief-company-valuation
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 8, 2004, 11:17 AM
Article ID : 88457

(10 December 2004; Coleridge J; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 365

The central issue so far as valuation of the company was concerned was the amortisation of goodwill attaching to the company; the judge concluded that some add-back in relation to the amortised goodwill should take place, but only a small allowance. The entire loan accounts were to be added together and divided by two, and each party was to be notionally attributed with one half. The judge was not prepared to accept the husband's proposal for a significant discount for the risk factor of retaining shares rather than cash, as there was also a reward factor in this case. However, it was important to give the husband a realistic period in which to raise the money, and the judge produced a payment schedule which provided for payment over 5 years, with a considerable discount available to the husband for early payment.

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