Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
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