Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF/JURISDICTION: Whitehouse-Piper v Stokes [2008] EWCA Civ 1049

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : whitehouse-piper-v-stokes-2008-ewca-civ-1049
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 17, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87277

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Wall and Burnton LJJ; 15 July 2008)

The wife applied for financial relief in her divorce petition, but as there were no assets at the time did not pursue it. Instead, she and the husband agreed that, as the matrimonial property was in negative equity, the wife would transfer her interests to the husband provided she was released from the mortgage. The mortgagee was not prepared to agree, and the agreement was never implemented. When the property eventually gained in value the husband raised the transfer issue again, and the wife gave notice of her intention to seek ancillary relief against herself in Form A; by this time she had remarried. The judge questioned whether the wife was precluded by Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 28(3) from instituting ancillary relief proceedings, but concluded that because the alternative would have been TOLATA proceedings he could proceed to hear the case.

The jurisdictional point identified by the judge did not in fact arise directly. The wife's original application for all forms of ancillary relief in her divorce petition entitled her to issue a notice of intention to proceed in Form A despite the fact that the application was filed with the court after remarriage. TOLATA proceedings would have achieved the same result if the jurisdictional point had in fact arisen.

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