Click the case name for better results:

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

Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000

On a divorce where there were fairly substantial sums at issue, the two parties argued for different bases for calculation of the wife’s interests, either her reasonable needs according to Duxbury tables, or otherwise to reflect the particular facts. Held: The Ogden tables should not be preferred in matrimonial proceedings. In substantial asset cases two … Continue reading Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000

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

A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees): FD 15 Nov 2000

An application for maintenance pending suit could properly be made, to include payment on account of the legal costs of pursuing the action. Such legal expense were of a recurring, and income type nature. Maintenance was not confined to the day to day living expenses of an applicant. In the absence of a statutory definition, … Continue reading A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees): FD 15 Nov 2000

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

B v B: FD 5 May 1993

A pension fund with only one member can be a post nuptial settlement and open to variation in ancillary proceedings in a divorce. Citations: Independent 14-May-1993, Times 05-May-1993 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78044

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

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

Wyatt v Vince: SC 11 Mar 2015

Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied for lump sum provision. W appealed against order … Continue reading Wyatt v Vince: SC 11 Mar 2015

Sharland v Sharland: SC 14 Oct 2015

The Court considered the impact of fraud upon a financial settlement agreed between divorcing parties where that agreement is later embodied in a court order? Does ‘fraud unravel all’, as is normally the case when agreements are embodied in court orders, or is there some special magic about orders made in matrimonial proceedings, which means … Continue reading Sharland v Sharland: SC 14 Oct 2015

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

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, . .

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

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

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

Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another: HL 29 Jul 1998

A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession proceedings issued by the landlord could … Continue reading Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another: HL 29 Jul 1998

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

Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council: CA 28 Sep 1999

The couple being joint tenants of the matrimonial home had applied for its purchase form the Council. Divorce proceedings commenced and she purported to terminate the joint tenancy. He applied to set aside the notice, and the Local Authority intervened. Neither the right to buy, nor the notice to terminate were dispositions of property, and … Continue reading Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council: CA 28 Sep 1999

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

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

O’D v O’D: CA 1976

When considering an application for ancillary relief by a wife, the court should consider the wife’s position, ‘not from the narrow point of ‘need’, but to ascertain her reasonable requirements.’ Judges: Ormrod LJ Citations: [1976] Fam 83 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Cited by: Cited – White v White HL 26-Oct-2000 The couple going through … Continue reading O’D v O’D: CA 1976

S v S: FD 1986

Both parties sought a variation of a maintenance order. The former husband sought to be allowed to pay a sufficient capital sum to his former wife to commute the payment in her favour. Held: Provided the sum could be paid and the result would not prejudice the arrangements for the children the variation sought by … Continue reading S v S: FD 1986

Kemmis v Kemmis (Welland and Others Intervening): CA 1988

H had mortgaged the matrimonial home to release funds to support his lifestyle. The bank knew about the family circumstances and the mortgage was set aside at first instance. W applied to have the charge set aside. Held: The application failed. The charge had been executed long before W had commenced her claims. The Court … Continue reading Kemmis v Kemmis (Welland and Others Intervening): CA 1988

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

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

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

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