Click the case name for better results:

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

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

Grasso v Naik (Twenty-One Irregular Divorces): FD 8 Nov 2017

Deceit in address avoided divorce petitions The Queen’s Proctor applied to have set aside as fraudulent 21 petitions for divorce. It was said that false addresses had been used in order to give the court the appearance that it had jurisdiction. Held: The decrees obtained by fraud were void and not just voidable, even here … Continue reading Grasso v Naik (Twenty-One Irregular Divorces): FD 8 Nov 2017

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

K, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009

The defendant appealed against orders allowing the use in evidence against him of information provided by him in ancillary relief proceedings, and without prejudice negotations with his wife’s solicitors. Held: The information provided through the formal ancillary relief process had been obtained under compulsion, and the rules had been intended to require full disclosure and … Continue reading K, Regina v: CACD 28 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

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

Buffery v Buffery: CA 30 Nov 1987

The court considered a petition for divorce beased upon unreasonable behaviour. The Wife petitioner appealed from the decision dismissing her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to the respondent. Held: After discussing O’Neill: ‘one looks to this husband and this wife, or vice versa, but one also looks at what is reasonable. That is … Continue reading Buffery v Buffery: CA 30 Nov 1987

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, . .

Balraj v Balraj: CA 1980

The husband’s petition was based on section 1(2)(e) of the 1973 Act, namely that he and the wife had lived apart for at least five years. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s rejection of the wife’s opposition to the grant of a decree, which was . .

Mills v Mills: SC 18 Jul 2018

The Court was asked: ‘In circumstances in which at the time of a divorce a spouse, say a wife, is awarded capital which enables her to purchase a home but later she exhausts the capital by entry into a series of unwise transactions and so develops a . .

White v White: CA 19 Jun 1998

Where husband and wife were partners in a business, the court deciding ancillary relief should first assess what each would get on a dissolution, then ask if family court powers to be exercised to increase the wife’s share, if not then should it be . .

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 . . . .

Dinch v Dinch: HL 1987

Consent orders had been made for maintenance and financial provision. The House was now asked whether the former wife could seek a property adjustment order of a type that had been sought in her petition but had not been made by the consent orders. . .

Thompson v Thompson: CA 1986

An order had been made in 1981 for the home not to be sold until the youngest child had attained the age of 17 ‘or further order’. The wife, who was living in the home with the children, against a judge’s determination that he had no jurisdiction to . .

Ward v Ward and Greene: 1980

It was argued that in order for the court fully to flex its powers at final hearing under section 23 and section 24 MCA 1973, it was necessary to issue a separate application under the MWPA 1882 (or the Law of Property Act 1925). . .

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 . .

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 . .

Tebbutt v Haynes: 1981

A finding in ancillary relief proceedings is not binding on others who were not themselves parties, and third parties should be allowed to be joined if necessary.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘It seems to me that, under section 24 of the 1973 Act, if . .

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 . .

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

Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces): FC 30 Sep 2014

The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction. Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in … Continue reading Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces): FC 30 Sep 2014

Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30 Sep 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 35 Links: Bailii Coram: Sir James Munby P FD The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction. Held: It had been … Continue reading Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30 Sep 2014

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

Rossi v Rossi: FD 26 Jun 2006

W sought to challenge transactions entered into by H anticipating ancillary relief proceedings on their divorce. Nicholas Mostyn QC J said: ‘While of course no rigid rule can be expressed for the infinite variety of facts that arise in ancillary relief cases, I would have thought, generally speaking, that it would be very difficult for … Continue reading Rossi v Rossi: FD 26 Jun 2006

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

H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property. Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take … Continue reading H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

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

FS v RS and JS: FC 30 Sep 2020

Financial Relief for Adult son – No Jurisdiction Adult but vulnerable son seeking financial relief against married and cohabiting parents. Held: Refuse Sir James Munby [2020] EWFC 63, [2020] WLR(D) 532 Bailii, WLRD Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998 England and Wales Cited by: Main Judgment – FS v RS … Continue reading FS v RS and JS: FC 30 Sep 2020

V v W: FC 2 Dec 2020

FDR Appointment Must Remain Confidential XYZ had been appointed to value a family company within financial relief proceedings, but on seeking payment of their fees, and facing a counterclaim alleging negligence, they sought disclosure of the transcript of the Financial Dispute Resolution appointment at which they were appointed. This was prohibited by the Rules, and … Continue reading V v W: FC 2 Dec 2020

Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the same? The CPS appealed against an order distributing a capital sum to the … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

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

Goodwin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jul 2002

The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at which a woman would have ceased payments thus causing harassment. A second claimant again … Continue reading Goodwin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jul 2002

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

Villiers v Villiers: SC 1 Jul 2020

Maintenance in England, divorce in Scotland H disputed the right of W to seek maintenance before and English court, saying that the parties had mostly lived in Scotland, and the divorce was being conducted there. Held: (Wilson, Hales LL dissenting) H’s appeal failed. The divorce and the maintenance action were distinct, and the European Regulations … Continue reading Villiers v Villiers: SC 1 Jul 2020

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

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

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