Family Law Hub

Property Interests

Latest updates

  • The couple married in 2016 after a long relationship, and the husband died later that year. The appeal was concerned with whether an application under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 could be made out of time, whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust instead of outright provision amounted to reasonable financial provision, and the relevance of a "stand-still agreement" in place while an out of court settlement was pursued. Asplin LJ found that the explanation for the lapse of time in this case was clear, and it had been wrong of the judge to find that the wife had received sufficient advice about the time limit and the 1975 Act. King LJ and Baker LJ agreed. The court exercised the power in s 4 of the 1975 Act to allow the wife to bring a claim out of time. Judgment, 31/07/2019, free
  • The former wife sought permission to bring a claim out of time for reasonable financial provision from the estate of the deceased. No provision had been made for her in the will, and a pre-nuptual agreement had provided that in the event of the marriage failing she would receive a lump sum of £10,000 and a flight to the Philippines, but no maintenance, property or financial provision. Master Shuman found that the former wife had not given a sufficent explanation for the delay, and decided that permission should not be granted. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
  • 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

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Lynsey Cade-Davies and Amber Sheridan of 29 Bedford Row review current developments in cohabitation law including an update on recent cases, proprietary estoppel after Southwell v Blackburn, the Cohabitation Rights Bill and points to remember when handling cases in the civil courts. Webcast, 16/03/2015, members only
  • Christopher Wagstaffe QC, 29 Bedford Row, addresses three main questions which arise in TLATA claims, quite apart from any Schedule 1 considerations. Webcast, 07/04/2014, members only
  • Watch a recording of the webinar, first broadcast on 14 March 2013. Webcast, 18/03/2013, members only
  • Webcast, 11/01/2012, members only

Latest sources

  • For use in registering joint ownership of property at the time of acquisition Form (external), 15/01/2013, free

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