- Everything (196)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (65)
- News (8)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (4)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (1)
- Judgment (118)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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
- 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
- In financial remedy proceedings, the husband was trying to thwart the wife's claim by asserting that the business and the properties were owned by his mother, in a situation where the true owners had been camouflaged. In virtually every case the actual facts would determine the real ownership of a piece of property, and an enquiry into real ownership would consider the intentions of the relevant actors. Conveyancers were urged to record how the beneficial interest is to be held. Mostyn J found that the business and properties were owned 50:50 by the husband and wife. Judgment, 27/03/2019, free
- The Claimant claimed that he was the sole beneficial owner of three properties and sought declarations to that effect, orders that they be transferred into his sole name and consequential relief. His claims were successful. Judgment, 14/03/2019, free
- The terms of a 2015 financial provision mainframe order were revisited in a judgment which considered how to divide various properties between the husband and wife. Judgment, 30/11/2018, free