Family Law Hub

Property Interests

Latest updates

  • The wife had applied for an occupation order for a property. The husband had claimed that the marriage certificate was a forgery. The judge found that there was a marriage and the husband was a serial liar. The husband now sought permission to appeal the findings and the consequent orders, and an extension of time to do so. Williams J allowed the appeal, on the basis that the hearing was procedurally irregular and the outcome consequently unjust. The matter was remitted to the Family Court. Judgment, 25/06/2019, free
  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • A freezing order on a property was due to be reconsidered. It had been made in favour of Mrs Chaudhri following default in the payment of a lump sum. Mostyn J found that the applicant had twice failed to pursue her claim in relation to the property, and it would be a manifest abuse were a claim now to be allowed to be mounted and protected by a freezing injunction. The freezing order on the property was discharged, but the worldwide freezing order made earlier would remain in force and be transferred to the Family Court. Any further applications for freezing relief should be made to the same Family Court and heard only at High Court judge level. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • The applicant, a convicted sex offender, applied for an order that a letter of request be issued to the American authorities for the respondent to be examined and required to produce documents relating to supposed assets. The claim being highly speculative, and given the applicant's conduct, Mostyn J concluded that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application. Judgment, 20/05/2019, free
  • The husband and wife had owned 127 properties, which were to be divided between them. The husband appealed against an order that 42 properties be put on sale unless he transferred them into his sole name and released the wife from her obligations under those mortgages. In Cohen J's judgment, the judge was plainly right to find that the husband had not used his best endeavours to obtain the wife's release from the mortgages, and the appeal was rejected. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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