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 spent W would have had the money available as capital. Held: Whilst … Continue reading Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas (2): CA 19 Nov 1996
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. The husband sought to restore it. Held: The district judge’s findings were not so wrong (if at all) … Continue reading Foster v Foster: CA 16 Apr 2003
The parties appealed an order for the division of the family’s 20 million pound fortune on divorce. The husband argued that his special contribution to the creation of the wealth meant that he should receive a greater share. Held: The Act gave wide discretions to the Court, and nobody could expect clarity or predictability of … Continue reading Lambert v Lambert: CA 14 Nov 2002
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family assets. Held: Asking what would be the approach of an English court, a request would not be met … Continue reading Charman v Charman: CA 20 Dec 2005
H had been granted a divorce on the grounds of W’s adultery. The court considered how the clean break provisions could be incorporated in a situation with children and how conduct might affect periodical payments. Held: The duty to consider a clean break applies whether or not there are children. The judge had erred in … Continue reading Suter v Suter and Jones: CA 19 Dec 1986
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
The parties disputed an ancillary relief claim on their divorce. The husband had been suicidally depressed. The wife had committed adultery over a long time and also assisted her husband’s failed suicide. The husband now sought to rely upon her behaviour, saying it would be inequitable to ignore it. Held: The husband’s appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Kyte v Kyte: CA 22 Jul 1987
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
The wife committed suicide six months after the ancillary relief order. The husband sought to re-open out of time the ancillary relief order and to reclaim the sum paid from the estate. Held: Where an ancillary relief order came to be reconsidered because its basis had been undermined by supervening events, the court should look … Continue reading Smith v Smith: CA 20 Feb 1991
Where a party alleges that the other has made a nil contribution to the welfare of the family, the case must be advanced under s25(2)(g). Citations: [2001] Family Law 656 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA … Continue reading Wells v Wells: FD 2001
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
H drank excessively and was unemployed. In the divorce he made an application for ancillary relief against the offer from W to share the proceeds of sale of the house equally. Held: H was homeless and unemployed. His behaviour was such as should be taken into account, but his needs required provision of a sum … Continue reading K v K (Ancillary Relief): 1990
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
The parties had a long marriage. They had acquired or inherited substantial assets, some of which had been placed in trusts. W had left and had affairs. She sought ancillary relief. Held: The wife’s behaviour was not to be considered as a separate factor under section 25, but was still part of the picture of … Continue reading E v E (Financial Provision): FD 1990
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
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 meaning of section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a ‘financial … Continue reading PJC v ADC: FD 25 Jun 2009
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
In deciding financial settlement, the court can consider contribution made by the Wife through her own special skills to the husband’s business. One could not sensibly fit an allowance for contribution into an analysis of a wife’s needs. That would do violence to language and to section 25(2), where contribution and needs are set out … Continue reading Conran v Conran: FD 14 Jul 1997
A bigamist is unable to claim ancillary relief in the second marriage; would be against public policy. Since bigamy was a serious crime which undermined fundamental notions of monogamous marriage, the Court would not as a matter of public policy entertain an application for financial relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 from a person … Continue reading Whiston v Whiston: CA 8 May 1995
Connell J discussed the effect of the presence of a prenuptial agreement, saying ‘The prenuptial agreement in my view is relevant to tending to guide the court to a more modest award than might have been made without it. I reject outright the suggestion that it should dictate the wife’s entitlement; but I bear it … Continue reading M v M (Prenuptial Agreement): FD 2002
The court considered an application to vary an ancillary relief award and gave a wife more than the sum set out in the budget in circumstances where she had received a capital sum that, with hindsight, was far too low.Hale J said: ‘Where such a dramatic change in the comparative wealth of the parties takes … Continue reading Cornick v Cornick (No 2): FD 1995
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
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
