The wife, following divorce, applied for a lump sum order to be made against the husband but then she added a claim under s.17 of the Act of 1882 for a declaration that she had an interest, for which the husband should account to her, in the assets of two public houses which together they had managed.
Held: The registrar and, on first appeal, the circuit judge had been wrong to concentrate – at great length – on the claim under the Act of 1882 referable to strict property rights. Ormrod LJ said that it was ‘of very little value to proceed under the [Act of] 1882 after divorce’ and the 1973 Act ‘provides an elastic method of deciding what is a fair order’.
Judges:
Ormrod LJ
Citations:
[1977] 1 WLR 1146
Statutes:
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Married Women’s Property Act 1882 18
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Trusts
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.381720
