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
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...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: X v X Crown Prosecution Service Intervening [2005] EWHC 296 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : x-v-x-crown-prosecution-service-intervening-2005-ewhc-296-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 2, 2005, 11:19 AM
Article ID : 88461

(2 March 2005; Munby J; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 487

A confiscation order was a highly relevant factor when considering the application of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, not merely when considering the husband's financial obligations, but also as conduct of the husband which it would be inequitable to disregard. There was no general discretionary power in either the Adminstrative Court or the Family Division to exonerate the defendant from the consequences of a confiscation order, or to ameliorate those consequences merely because it might be fair or just to do so. With or without the confiscation order the instant case was not a needs based case, but a case for equal division of the assets, and the confiscation order should be met out of the husband's share of the assets, notwithstanding that this would leave him with only his pension income to rely upon.

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