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 a marital regime of community of property. In such circumstances what is the need for the Courts discretionary adjustive powers? The introduction of the ‘no order’ principle into section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 might contribute to the elimination of unnecessary litigation. As a matter of principle I am of the opinion that Judges should give considerable weight to the property arrangements made during marriage and, in cases where the parties have opted for equality, reserve the exercise of the adjustive powers to those cases where fairness obviously demands some reordering.’ (Thorpe LJ) and ‘ . . the outcome of ancillary relief cases depends upon the exercise of a singularly broad judgment that obviates the need for the investigation of minute detail and equally the need to make findings on minor issues in dispute. The judicial task is very different from the task of the judge in the civil justice system whose obligation is to make findings on all issues in dispute relevant to outcome. The quasi-inquisitorial role of the judge in ancillary relief litigation obliges him to investigate issues he considers relevant to outcome even if not advanced by either party. Equally, he is not bound to adopt a conclusion upon which the parties have agreed. . . . But this independence must be matched by an obligation to eschew over-elaboration and to endeavour to paint the canvas of his judgment with a broad brush rather than with a fine sable. Judgments in this field need to be simple . . in structure and simply explained.’
Judges:
Thorpe LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1886, (2003) 1 FLR 942
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – G v G and Another FdNI 25-Oct-2003
There had been a long but argumentative marriage, and the parties disputed distribution of the assets on an ancillary relief application.
Held: The husband could not claim to discount shareholdings as a minority shareholding where he also . .
Cited – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189017