Archive for the 'financial provision' Category

Wife loses bid for bigger payout from estranged husband – Daily Telegraph

“The estranged wife of a former banker who argued that £4.8 million was not enough to live on yesterday lost a High Court bid for a larger slice of his wealth.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 23rd March 2011

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Jones v Jones – WLR Daily

Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41; [2011] WLR (D) 26

“Even if an earning capacity might also sometimes be relevant to a fair distribution of the assets pursuant to the sharing principle, it did not follow that the earning capacity should itself be treated as one of those assets, still less that an attempt should be made to capitalise it.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Granatino v Radmacher (formerly Granatino) – WLR Daily

Granatino v Radmacher (formerly Granatino) [2010] UKSC 42; [2010] WLR (D) 260

“A court should give effect to a nuptial agreement, whether entered into before or after marriage, that was freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to the agreement.”

WLR Daily, 21st October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Imerman v Tchenguiz and others; Same v Imerman – WLR Daily

“There was no legal justification for permitting a spouse to retain copies of documents unlawfully obtained in breach of confidence in order to prevent the other spouse from concealing assets in ancillary relief proceedings. A spouse could apply for search and seizure, freezing, preservation and similar orders to ensure that assets were not wrongly concealed or dissipated.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Polo playing dotcom tycoon forced to pay wife £7 million in divorce settlement – Daily Telegraph

“A polo playing dotcom tycoon was ordered by a judge to pay his ex-wife half his £14 million fortune after being accused of ‘flagrant, persistent and consistent” attempts to hide his wealth.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 23rd July 2010

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Ex-wife returns to court to ask for bigger divorce settlement – Daily Telegraph

“The ex-wife of a business tycoon has returned to the divorce courts to ask for a bigger slice of his fortune after he sold his business for £180 million.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 23rd July 2010

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Boris Berezovsky’s second wife wins record £100m divorce settlement – The Guardian

“He has survived several assassination attempts, false charges of fraud by the Russian authorities and won high-profile libel cases in London courtrooms. But the exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky has been unable to escape the wrath of his second wife, Galina. Today she won a divorce from the businessman in the high court, in a settlement that lawyers believe could be the biggest in British legal history.”

Full story

The Guardian, 22nd July 2010

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Property tycoon in £400m divorce battle declared bankrupt – The Independent

“A tycoon fixer who is fighting a bitter divorce case from his estranged wife over claims that he has hidden his £400m fortune has been declared bankrupt by the taxman.”

Full story

The Independent, 23rd April 2010

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Vaughan v Vaughan – WLR Daily

Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349; [2010] WLR (D) 95

“When a judge was determining (i) a husband’s application to terminate a financial obligation to his former wife and (ii) the former wife’s application to capitalise the obligation, and he was comparing the financial needs of the former wife and a present wife, there remained a presumption that on marriage each spouse took the other subject to all existing encumbrances, whether known or not.”

WLR Daily, 12th April 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Agbaje v Agbaje – WLR Daily

Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13; [2010] WLR (D) 71

“An English court considering under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 whether it would be appropriate to make an order for financial relief on the application of a party to a foreign divorce was not required to apply a forum non conveniens test and decide which of two jurisdictions was the appropriate one. The whole basis of Pt III was that it might be appropriate for two jurisdictions to be involved, one for the divorce and the other for ancillary relief.”

WLR Daily, 10th March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Ruling confirms London as divorce payout capital – The Independent

“London’s reputation as the divorce payout capital of the world was reinforced by the Supreme Court today.”

Full story

The Independent, 10th March 2010

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino – WLR Daily

Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649; [2009] WLR (D) 227

“A judge should give due weight to the marital property regime into which a couple entered so as to legitimately exercise the very wide discretion conferred on judges to achieve fairness between the parties to ancillary relief proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 3rd July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Myerson v Myerson (No 2) – Times Law Reports

Myerson v Myerson (No 2)

Court of Appeal

“A husband could not have an order compromising an ancillary relief application rewritten where his wealth had fallen significantly.”

The Times, 6th April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Now bankers want a new bonus – lower divorce settlements – The Independent

“Divorced bankers who have had their bonuses cut are trying to wriggle out of millions of pounds worth of maintenance payments they promised to pay their children and former wives. Dozens of ex-husbands in the City are going back to court to ask judges to reduce divorce settlements that were agreed in much rosier economic times.”

Full story

The Independent, 26th February 2009

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Akinnoye Agbaje v Akinnoye Agbaje – WLR Daily

Akinnoye Agbaje v Akinnoye Agbaje [2009] EWCA Civ 1; [2009] WLR (D) 11

A careful approach was required where a court was determining whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to grant an applicant leave to apply for financial relief in this jurisdiction following a divorce in an overseas country.”

WLR Daily, 21st January 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Ansari v Ansari – Times Law Reports

Ansari v Ansari

Court of Appeal

“A charge on a property which was not in itself a reviewable disposition was not to be set aside as a result of setting aside the transfer of a property by a husband to defeat his wife’s rights, which was a reviewable disposition.”

The Times, 16th January 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Ansari v Ansari (Bank of Scotland plc intervening) – WLR Daily

Ansari v Ansari (Bank of Scotland plc intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 1456; [2008] WLR (D) 413

“Where a disposition of property made with the intention of reducing financial relief had been followed by further transactions made for valuable consideration and in good faith, the discretion conferred by s 37(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 would not be used to set aside, as a consequence of setting aside the original reviewable disposition under the Act, a charge, not in itself a reviewable disposition which had been granted by the purchaser on the security of the property.”

WLR Daily, 5th January 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories