Family Law Hub

Inherited Wealth

Latest updates

  • Final orders in financial remedy proceedings where the assets were worth £40m, the wife had special medical needs as a result of a brain tumour and the German husband was absent from the final stages of these proceedings. Cobb J also considers, among other things, arguments on inherited wealth, whether the Duxbury or Ogden tables are appropriate to cater for the wife's needs and whether the husband had been served properly. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Wife's appeal against financial orders in which the judge had i) regarded the wife's future inheritance from her father as a resource that she was likely to have in the foreseeable future under Section 25(2)(a) MCA, and ii) granted the wife an occupational interest in the former matrimonial home rather than ordering the husband to pay a lump sum to the wife sufficient to enable her to buy a property of her own. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of the appropriate lump sum to be paid to the wife in addition to the agreed sum of £2m. Judgment, 19/10/2017, free
  • A complicated financial remedy judgment involving trusts, inherited assets, businesses and non-matrimonial property. Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • As part of their divorce settlement, the parties agreed that the ex-wife would keep the first £100,000 of any inheritance from her mother and the balance over that amount would be split equally between them. The mother left exactly £100,000 to the ex-wife with the remaining £150,000 going to the ex-wife's children. The ex-husband brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the ex-wife's mother's will, alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The Deputy Master decided that H had no sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. The ex-husband's appeal against that decision was allowed. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • Judgment concerning correct treatment of inherited wealth and post-separation accrual. In the event Mostyn J arrives at a 50/50 split by coincidence. See related judgment JL v SL [2014] EWHC 3658 (Fam) for background. Judgment, 19/02/2015, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Unusual FR case where W did not have capacity to litigate and H disengaged with the proceedings Case note, 19/01/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Heavily contested proceedings where treatment of Liechtenstein Stiftung was a key issue Case note, 22/03/2017, members only
  • In a tweet: Creditor of a beneficiary had an interest in the deceased's estate that gave him standing to challenge the validity of the will Case note, 21/09/2016, members only
  • Judgment concerning correct treatment of inherited wealth and post-separation accrual. Case note, 17/03/2015, members only
  • Case note, 15/01/2010, members only

Latest training

  • Recording of webinar broadcast on 7th February 2019 Webcast, 11/02/2019, members only
  • Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
  • Webcast recorded on 22 January at 1pm. Lysney Cade-Davies and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row review some of the leading cases of 2014 and highlight the lessons for the year ahead. Webcast, 22/01/2015, members only
  • Victoria Domenge from 29 Bedford Row reviews the cases involving inherited assets since FZ v SZ and summarises the different approaches of the judges when deciding on an appropriate split. Webcast, 20/05/2013, members only


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item