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: S v S (Ancillary Relief After Lengthy Separation) [2006] EWHC 2339 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : s-v-s-ancillary-relief-after-lengthy-separation-2006-ewhc-2339-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 22, 2006, 08:46 AM
Article ID : 85225

(Family Division; Singer J; 22 September 2006)

The ancillary relief hearing took place over 10 years after the divorce. The marriage had lasted for over 18 years. The husband had owned the business before the divorce, but had subsequently developed it without any form of support or contribution from the wife. There had been a very significant disagreement between the experts as to the correct valuation for the husband's company, the husband's valuer suggesting £3.73m, the wife's valuer suggesting £27.2m. The company had been in difficulties in recent years, and flotation or sale would only be possible after considerable further effort by the husband.

The length of the separation and the current state of company made it unfair for the wife to ask for a share in the potential of the husband's company. The husband was ceding to the wife the current tangible wealth and enhancing her pension fund so as to achieve equality, while at the same time assuming the whole of the risk. Although assets were to be valued as at the date of hearing rather than at the date of separation, what happened in the intervening years could be very significant. In this case the value of the husband's shares was more akin to non-matrimonial property, however, the shares had been given weight in the balancing exercise by having regard both to the approximate value of the husband's separation-date holding of shares and to his contribution to the generation of wealth unmatched by the wife.

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