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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Re B (Criminal Justice Act 1988) [2008] EWHC 690 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:10 PM
Slug : re-b-criminal-justice-act-1988-2008-ewhc-690-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 11, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87173

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Cranston J; 11 April 2008)

Shortly before the husband pleaded guilty to excise fraud, and a confiscation order was made against him, the husband transferred his only asset, a half share in the matrimonial property, to the wife for no monetary value, the wife having remortgaged the property in her sole name. The wife had been the household breadwinner for some years, because of the husband's long-term illness, and had been unable to remortgage the property jointly with the husband because of the husband's debts.

The transfer of the husband's interest in the property had not been made to avoid the consequences of the husband's guilty plea and the resulting confiscation order; the evidence had established that the transfer had instead been an attempt to place the family finances in order, and had been recommended by the financial institutions advising the wife. However, the transfer had still been a gift to wife, and was accordingly available to pay the husband's confiscation order.

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