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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Zeiderman v Zeiderman [2008] EWCA Civ 760

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : zeiderman-v-zeiderman-2008-ewca-civ-760
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87321

(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ and Sir Peter Gibson; 18 June 2008)

The court allowed the appeal against the judge's award to the wife of half the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, plus periodical payments of half the husband's income after deductions (£20,000 pa). The award had been based on the judge's belief that the husband was lying when he said he was not due any money from the sale of his parents' house and when he assessed his income, but there was no evidence to support this conclusion. The district judge may have given undue weight to conduct. Given that the judge's order had been made after decree nisi but before decree absolute, it was doubtful whether the judge's order had properly taken effect. The judge hearing the husband's first appeal should have admitted the husband's evidence as to his parents' property and as to his income.

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