Site icon swarb.co.uk

Holmes v Holmes: 1990

(Australia) Cohen J considered the distribution of assets (in particular a lottery win) on divorce, saying: ‘Yet, ignoring any contribution to the price of the winning ticket, this part of the winnings was brought into the pool of family assets by the wife, and no contribution to it was made by the husband’ Rather than regarding the win automatically as though there was no contribution by either party, concluded that a windfall must be looked at in all of the circumstances; in particular to have regard to the effort made by a party to achieve the windfall, as well as the timing of the windfall.

Judges:

Cohen J

Citations:

(1990) FLC 92-181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedS v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) FD 14-Oct-2011
The court considered how to treat a lottery win of andpound;500,000 in the context of an ancillary relief application on a divorce.
Held: The answers in such cases must be fact specific. ‘In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445481

Exit mobile version