Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: S v S [2007]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : s-v-s-2007
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 22, 2007, 10:44 AM
Article ID : 86999

(Family Division; 22 May 2007; Baron J)

When an FDR had not been effective, it was incumbent upon the court to fix another appointment as soon as practicable so that the parties could be given an opportunity to sort out their litigation, air the issues, and have a neutral judicial evaluation at a time before the costs denuded their assets. The case had to come before an experienced tribunal and had to be given sufficient time to enable the tribunal to read the papers fully and to engage with the parties and their professional teams. The district judge had not been plainly wrong in failing to take the wife's inheritance prospects into account, however it had been unfair and discriminatory to ring-fence the wife's financial contributions to the marriage, which had emanated from her parents. Each party had made a full and proper contribution to the marriage and all assets that had come into the marriage should have been available to cover the parties' requirements.

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