Click the case name for better results:

Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure) Practice Note: CA 1982

The court considered the duty of parties in finacial relief proceedings to give full disclosure. Held: In proceedings for ancillary relief, there was a duty, both under the rules and by authority, on the parties to make full and frank disclosure of their property and financial resources; accordingly the power to set aside orders was … Continue reading Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure) Practice Note: CA 1982

Yorston and Others, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions): FC 10 Sep 2021

Petitions with Identical Particulars Dismissed 28 divorce petitions had particulars including the exact same form of words for the allegations. The court could not accept that the behaviour had been identical and concluded that the petitions were improper. Held: The petitions were dismissed. A reference to the DPP was not necessary, Moor J [2021] EWFC … Continue reading Yorston and Others, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions): FC 10 Sep 2021

S v S (Matrimonial Proceedings: Appropriate Forum) (Divorce: Staying Proceedings): FD 27 Mar 1997

Fairness is the test for choice of forum for staying divorce proceedings. As to prenuptial agreements, Wilson J suggested that there might come a case: ‘where the circumstances surrounding the prenuptial agreement and the provision therein contained might, when viewed in the context of the other circumstances of the case, prove influential or even crucial. … Continue reading S v S (Matrimonial Proceedings: Appropriate Forum) (Divorce: Staying Proceedings): FD 27 Mar 1997

PJC v ADC: FD 25 Jun 2009

In ancillary relief proceedings, the single largest relevant asset is a trust fund in which the husband has an interest. One of the questions which arises is whether, and if so to what extent, the husband’s interest under the trust is, within the . .

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005

The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge looked properly at the issues identified in the Act, the order would have been different. Held: The … Continue reading A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005

Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy: CA 16 Oct 2002

The parties had divorced. The wife alleged a serious assault against her husband, and instructed a claims firm to recover damages from him. Her ancillary relief claim in the divorce was compromised with her having sought to rely upon the assault, but without mentioning having instructed the claims firm. The husband resisted these proceedings for … Continue reading Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy: CA 16 Oct 2002

G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement): CA 28 Jun 2000

The parties had been married before and had signed a prenuptial agreement. Held: Thorpe LJ set out the duties of a judge in ancillary relief applications: ‘A judge has to do fairness between the parties, having regard to all the circumstances. He must be free to include within that discretionary review the factors which compelled … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement): CA 28 Jun 2000

McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income. Held: The distinction between capital and income awards is no longer conclusive, having arisen in part from historical … Continue reading McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company): FD 2001

The nature of the family assets may be taken into account when considering how they are to be divided in ancillary relief proceedings on divorce, where these are businesses which will be crippled or lose much of their value, if disposed of prematurely in order to fund an equal division. Coleridge J said: ‘In the … Continue reading N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company): FD 2001

G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was … Continue reading G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

Cordell v Cordell: 2002

To succeed in an appeal against an ancillary relief order, the appellant should be able to show some procedural irregularity or that, in conducting the necessary balancing exercise, the district judge has taken into account matters which were irrelevant or ignored matters which were relevant or has otherwise arrived at a conclusion which was plainly … Continue reading Cordell v Cordell: 2002

H v H (Financial Provision: Conduct): 1994

Citations: [1994] 2 FLR 801, [1994] 2 FCR 1031 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g) Cited by: Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA 29-Jul-2005 The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The … Continue reading H v H (Financial Provision: Conduct): 1994

Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness of the marriage. The husband answered to say that she had declared that she would … Continue reading Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

A v A (Arbitration: Guidance): FD 9 Jul 2021

Enforcement of registration of result of family law arbitration. Judges: Mr Justice Mostyn Citations: [2021] EWHC 1889 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 388, [2021] 1 WLR 5393 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25, Arbitration Act 1996 68 69 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.665991

H v H (Financial Provision: Special Contribution): FD 2002

The court heard an application for ancillary relief in a divorce. The family assets were pounds 6M. The husband was a successful city solicitor. Counsel contended that for various reasons his financial accumulations during the course of his professional life amounted to a special contribution: but on behalf of the wife it was submitted that … Continue reading H v H (Financial Provision: Special Contribution): FD 2002

FZ v SZ and Others (ancillary relief: conduct: valuations): FD 5 Jul 2010

The court heard an application for ancillary relief and variation of a post nuptial settlement. Each party made allegations of misconduct against the other, and the litigation had been bitter and protracted. W had obtained copies of H’s private email correspondence, and H had relocated financial assets. Held: H’s actions were exceptionally unpleasant and were … Continue reading FZ v SZ and Others (ancillary relief: conduct: valuations): FD 5 Jul 2010

B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets): CA 19 Mar 2008

The wife appealed an ancillary relief order for equal division on the basis that the judge had failed to allow for the fact that most of the assets had been brought to the marriage by her. Held: Her appeal succeeded. All the assets at the start of the marriage were hers, and the parties had … Continue reading B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets): CA 19 Mar 2008

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital. Held: The 1973 Act gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Piglowska v Piglowski: HL 24 Jun 1999

No Presumption of House for both Parties When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be reluctant to allow repeated appeals … Continue reading Piglowska v Piglowski: HL 24 Jun 1999

Miller Smith v Miller Smith: CA 2 Dec 2009

The married couple owned a property as tenants in common. The husband had moved out and, anticipating divorce proceedings, sought an order for the sale of the house citing his inability to sustain the very considerable mortgage payments. The wife said that it was inappropriate to use the 1996 Act when divorce proceedings were anticipated. … Continue reading Miller Smith v Miller Smith: CA 2 Dec 2009

Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009

Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the husband. The husband had not had independent legal advice before signing the agreement. Held: … Continue reading Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009

Stodgell v Stodgell FD: FD 18 Jul 2008

The parties were involved in ancillary relief proceedings. At the same time the husband was in prison after having hidden earnings from his business, and was subject to an unsatisfied confiscation order. The guardian had had doubts about the mother’s suitability to have full responsibility for the care of their 11 year old son. The … Continue reading Stodgell v Stodgell FD: FD 18 Jul 2008

Mubarak v Mubarak: CA 2001

A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources of the … Continue reading Mubarak v Mubarak: CA 2001

Hall v Hall: CA 1984

After divorce proceedings had commenced, the wife visited the husband, then living with someone else, and stabbed him. She now appealed an order for maintenance reduced because of her conduct.
Held: The conduct was clearly gross and obvious, . .

Thomas v Thomas: CA 2 May 1995

H was a wealthy businessman, but, as a member of Lloyds, he had been required to charge the family home to secure potential liabilities. Also, the company of which he was managing director had always paid out only smaller sums by way of dividends, . .

Wicks v Wicks: CA 29 Dec 1997

A court has no power to make an interim order for the purchase of a house for the wife and children pending determination of the overall ancillary application. The result sought by the wife could have been achieved by application under section 17 of . .

Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas (2): CA 19 Nov 1996

Both husband and wife had independent means, and neither worked. The wife had spent pounds 100,000k on Children Act proceedings, and sought ancillary relief. The judge had made an order on capital to reflect the fact that if those costs had not been . .

Foster v Foster: CA 16 Apr 2003

The marriage had been short, there were no children, both parties were working, and each could support themselves providing themselves with accomodation. The wife had successfully appealed a finding of the district judge for an equal distribution. . .

Dean v Dean: FD 1978

The wife said that she had not got a good bargain in an agreement settling ancillary relief applications.
Held: The court must have regard to s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, but also to: ‘Conduct of the parties in all the circumstances . . . .

S v S: FD 19 Mar 2008

The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, and particularly as to an order that he should continue to pay maintenance for the joint lives of the parties rater than for five years. He was earning a substantial income but anticipated that . .

Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2): CA 1 Apr 1991

In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump sum of andpound;1 million. The judge made no order as to costs after the date … Continue reading Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2): CA 1 Apr 1991

Moorhead v Moorhead: ChNI 11 Jan 2002

The deceased’s widow complained that her husband’s will had not made proper provision for her as was required by the order which ‘ In the case of a spouse reasonable financial provision means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, … Continue reading Moorhead v Moorhead: ChNI 11 Jan 2002

Parra v Parra: CA 20 Dec 2002

The court considered the division of family assets on an ancillary relief application where a family company assets were involved but the assets had been divided equally: ‘The parties have, perhaps unusually, ordered their affairs during the marriage to achieve equality and to eliminate any potential for gender discrimination. They had in effect elected for … Continue reading Parra v Parra: CA 20 Dec 2002

Shahzad v Mazher and Another: CA 18 Dec 2020

Appeal from order setting aside decree absolute of divorce – finding of fraud as to length of separation. Judges: Lord Justice Moylan Citations: [2020] EWCA Civ 1740 Links: Bailii Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.656881

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal: CA 19 Jul 2001

The parties were divorced, but when the husband applied for ancillary relief, the wife petitioned for nullity on the basis that the marriage was bigamous. The husband countered that she had known that his first marriage had only ended after this marriage. His application was struck out under 25(2)(g) Held: The husband’s application was re-instated … Continue reading Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal: CA 19 Jul 2001

D v D (Production Appointment): FD 29 Nov 1995

An accountant’s professional privilege was overborne by the court, and a wider disclosure was approved. The court set a wide boundary around the scope of the documents which he was ordering the wife’s accountant to produce: ‘If the boundary is set narrow, there is the risk that information as to the nature and extent of … Continue reading D v D (Production Appointment): FD 29 Nov 1995

Elizabeth Adams v Julian James Lewis (Administrator of the Estate of Frank Adams dec): ChD 26 Jan 2001

The widow’s claim under the Act was contested by three daughters where the widow received a specific legacy and the will gave trustees a power to apply any part of the residue during the lifetime of the widow to provide and maintain a suitable residence. The court reduced the specific legacy and made an order … Continue reading Elizabeth Adams v Julian James Lewis (Administrator of the Estate of Frank Adams dec): ChD 26 Jan 2001

Moody v Stevenson: CA 12 Jul 1991

The widower aged 81, appealed against refusal of provision under the 1975 Act from his wife’s estate. She had left him nothing. The judge at first instance had found, applying Styler, that her treatment was not unreasonable, and that therefore no jurisdiction to make an award arose. Held: The court considered the application of section … Continue reading Moody v Stevenson: CA 12 Jul 1991

Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

Re Kumar (A Bankrupt), ex parte Lewis v Kumar: 1993

H had transferred his interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home to W for her promise to have sole liability for the mortgage debt. Nearly a year later her divorce claim for capital provision was dismissed by consent on the basis that H had already transferred his interests to W. H was bankrupted, and his … Continue reading Re Kumar (A Bankrupt), ex parte Lewis v Kumar: 1993

Page v Page: CA 1981

In an ancillary relief application, there was enough capital to provide adequately for both husband and wife. Held: When considering the needs and obligations of the parties a broad view could be taken: (Ormrod LJ) ‘In a case such as this ‘needs’ can be regarded as equivalent to ‘reasonable requirements’, taking into account the other … Continue reading Page v Page: CA 1981

G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

The family assets were in the region of andpound;8.5M. The wife sought a half share. The husband proposed that she should have 40%. The husband had built the family fortune through exceptional hard work and astute business acumen in the field of substantial development and construction projects. The court considered how capital and income could … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

V v V (Ancillary relief: Power to order child maintenance): FD 6 Jun 2001

The parties had sought a child maintenance order form the court, but the husband resiled from his agreement. Held: Where the court was unexpectedly blocked in this way, it had a power to make an order for payment by way of a lump sum of the difference to the wife for the benefit of the … Continue reading V v V (Ancillary relief: Power to order child maintenance): FD 6 Jun 2001

First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984

The husband had forged his wife’s signature on the loan application and on the charge of the house held by himself and his wife as joint tenants. He had left the country, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the charge, and ex parte obtained an order nisi charging the husband’s interest in the house. The … Continue reading First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984

Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction was an infringement of her human rights. Held: Such a relationship is recognised in England as a civil … Continue reading Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

Bellinger v Bellinger: HL 10 Apr 2003

Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible with the claimant’s … Continue reading Bellinger v Bellinger: HL 10 Apr 2003

Bellinger v Bellinger: CA 17 Jul 2001

Transgender Male may not marry as Female Despite gender re-assignment, a person born and registered a male, remained biologically a male, and so was not a woman for the purposes of the law of marriage. The birth registration in this case had been correct. The words ‘male and female’ in the section had not previously … Continue reading Bellinger v Bellinger: CA 17 Jul 2001

Re Abbot (A Bankrupt), ex parte Trustee Of The Property Of The Bankrupt v Abbot: QBD 1983

An ancillary relief order was made in December 1978, following a compromise agreement. It provided for the sale of the former matrimonial home and the payment to the wife from the proceeds of sale of andpound;18,000. The husband was adjudicated bankrupt in May 1980. The trustee applied for an order declaring that the order was … Continue reading Re Abbot (A Bankrupt), ex parte Trustee Of The Property Of The Bankrupt v Abbot: QBD 1983

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

Judge v Judge and others: CA 19 Dec 2008

The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the Inland Revenue and otherwise in respect of failed business. The husband had prepared … Continue reading Judge v Judge and others: CA 19 Dec 2008