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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

ANCILLARY RELIEF: W v H [2008] EWHC 2038 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : w-v-h-2008-ewhc-2038-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 20, 2008, 11:55 AM
Article ID : 88625

(Family Division; Eleanor King J; 20 August 2008)

In a case involving assets of about £78 million, the husband argued that the parties had reached an agreement, which had been implemented in its entirety, except for a modest pension sharing provision which not be implemented until the court made an order; over £34 million had been transferred to the wife or to her trusts,. The wife accepted that the parties had agreed to divide the assets 45% to the wife and 55% to the husband, but argued that the details of the agreement had not been finalised. The wife had, following the agreement, litigated in Jersey in relation to certain trust funds in which she had an interest, and a number of her concerns related to the new trust arrangements. The wife filed a notice of intention to proceed with an application for ancillary relief. The husband issued a notice to show cause why the ancillary relief order should not be made in terms of the draft order, which, although not released to the husband's solicitors, had been signed by wife.

It would be wrong to 'stay' the ancillary relief proceedings and to list the issue of the agreement as a preliminary issue isolated from a proper consideration of the s 25 factors; however, the husband's notice to show cause was a proportionate and just route by which to determine the extent to which the agreement, as a factor of magnetic importance, should be determinative of the action. The husband had very strong case that an agreement had been concluded. There was to be a listing for a final hearing, at which the husband's notice to show cause would be determined. There was to be no further disclosure and no replies to questionnaires would be ordered, except in order to ascertain whether, in regard to one specific trust, there had been a separation as opposed to an apportionment of assets.

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