Latest updates
- The couple had been separated since 2012 and divorced since 2014. They had two children, aged 13 and 15. The husband was in very substantial breach of his financial obligations under a previous order, to the extent of £2.6m. The husband claimed that he was insolvent and could be made bankrupt by any one of his many creditors. In HHJ Hess's view, the husband was asking her to re-open the overall quantum of a lump sum by instalments which had been part of a consent order which had been intended to be a final package. Since he was a substantial cause of his own problems, she could not regard those problems as rendering it unjust to hold him to the original order. Despite his current difficulties, the order would not be discharged by bankruptcy proceedings or by time limitation, so the former wife might one day be able to enforce it. The capital order was varied to adopt a new, agreed figure, and the child periodical payments order was varied in accordance with an agreement reached between the parties. Judgment, 08/08/2020, free
- A judgment in financial remedy proceedings. The marriage had lasted six and a half years. The wife had sought the full range of financial relief in her application, but, the husband being bankrupt, the case she in fact ran was to seek a dismissal of all claims by both parties, and rely upon a prenuptial agreement which provided for a separation of property. The husband sought a lump sum of £739,000, sufficient to discharge his bankruptcy, provide for his living expenses and purchase a three-bedroomed house. In HHJ Booth's judgment, there was no value in the prenuptial agreement. There was no formal disclosure, and no legal advice given to either party. This was a needs case. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended, required him to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. He ordered a transfer of 60% of the wife's pension, and payment of a lump sum of £270,000 to discharge the husband's bankruptcy and pay his legal fees. A fund of money would be provided for the husband to buy a house in his name, subject to a trust in favour of the wife, allowing her to recover the capital advance at such time as the husband no longer needed that home. Judgment, 27/04/2020, free
- A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
- Appeal from the decision dismissing the amended application by the Appellant to set aside the order authorising substituted service on him of the bankruptcy petition, annul the bankruptcy order made against him and dismiss the bankruptcy petition. Judgment, 01/03/2019, free
- Appeal concerning correct route for alteration of substantive capital adjustment orders. Judgment, 26/03/2018, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: Capital award attaching to sale of property order cannot be varied or discharged by a court of first instance Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
- Standard family order as approved by the President 30 November 2017 Order, 19/01/2018, members only
- In a tweet: s.24A order for sale creates an equitable interest Case note, 12/06/2017, members only
- In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal by a TiB against findings that W of bankrupt H should not be held liable under "equity of exoneration". Indirect benefit to co-owner does not prevent equity of exoneration arising in their favour Case note, 11/05/2017, members only
- In a tweet: Claims for financial relief on divorce do not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy Case note, 12/01/2017, members only
Latest training
- Webcast, 21/05/2012, members only