Prescott v Fellowes: CA 1958

The court considered whether a deed of trust created a post nuptial settlement within the 1950 Act: ‘Inasmuch as the deed vested no property in trustees and created no successive legal or beneficial interests it had none of the attributes of a settlement which are familiar to conveyancing practitioners. It has, however, long since been established by decisions which are binding on this court that a disposition of property may a ‘settlement’ for the purposes of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1950, notwithstanding that it would not be regarded as a settlement of property for any other purpose. The liberality with which this legislation has been construed is sufficiently exemplified by Bosworthick v. Bosworthick. In that case a wife executed, a few years after her marriage, a bond which secured to her husband an annuity for his life. The marriage was dissolved in 1925 and the wife applied to the court for an order extinguishing her liability under the bond. This court, affirming the decision of Lord Merrivale P., held that the bond was a post-nuptial settlement for the purposes of section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, and section 192 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925; and the wife’s application succeeded. In the course of his judgment Romer J., who was sitting as a member of this court, said that the authorities established ‘that where a ‘husband has made a provision for his wife, or a wife for her husband, in the nature of periodical payments, that amounts to a settlement within the meaning of the sections. That may appear to be a very liberal construction of the sections, but I think that it is no more liberal a construction than should be given to them having regard to the obvious purposes for which they were enacted by the legislature.’
Romer LJ
[1958] P 260
Matriimonial Cause Act 1950
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCharalambous v Charalambous; C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement) CA 30-Jul-2004
The parties had been wealthy. Whilst still married, substantial sums had been placed in a trust. Their business interests had crashed and both faced personal bankruptcy. The husband appealed an order setting aside the trust.
Held: A clause in . .
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.199724