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 to the needs principle) matrimonial property will normally be divided equally (see para 14(iii) of my judgment in N v F). By contrast, it will be a rare case where the sharing participle will lead to any distribution to the claimant of non-matrimonial property. Of course an award from non-matrimonial property to meet needs is a common place, but as Wilson LJ has pointed out we await the first decision where the sharing principle has led to an award from non-matrimonial property in excess of needs.’ W’s suggestion that she had not won the money was unsustainable,and her use of it to purchase a property for the family to live in made it a family asset. Nevertheless, the marriage continued after that point for only a short time. It was right that H should receive some, but rather less than 50%. Order accordingly.
Mostyn J
[2011] EWHC 2637 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Anastasio v Anastasio 1981
(Australia) The court considered the treatment of a lottery win within consideration of ancillary relief on divorce. The parties had only lived together for 14 months, and both had worked throughout.
Held: Though a mathematical approach would . .
Cited – K v L CA 13-May-2011
H’s appeal against an ancillary relief order for payment of lump sum allowing clean break.
Held: Wilson LJ said: ‘a special contribution arises in circumstances in which a spouse’s contribution, direct or indirect, to the creation of . .
Cited – N v F FD 11-Mar-2011
The court was asked the ‘vexed’ question of how the court should, when exercising its powers to award ancillary relief, reflect, if at all, the property that H had brought into the marriage back in 1993. . .
Cited – McTaggart v McTaggart 8-Apr-1987
Family Court of Australia – The court was asked as to the treatment of a lottery win on a divorce.
Held: The prize was a windfall enuring to the benefit of both parties. Mullane J said: ‘My view is that these arguments are misconceived. The . .
Cited – Vaughan v Vaughan CA 31-Mar-2010
H had been paying maintenance to W for many years after the divorce. W now appealed against an order revoking the arrangement without providing a capital sum to replace it. H’s health had declined, and also his earnings.
Held: W’s appeal . .
Cited – Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) 2010
. .
Cited – Charman v Charman (No 4) CA 24-May-2007
The court considered what property should be considered in an ancillary relief claim on divorce, and said: ‘To what property does the sharing principle apply? The answer might well have been that it applies only to matrimonial property, namely the . .
Cited – FS v JS FD 10-Nov-2006
Ancillary relief.
Held: The circumstances, in particular the bringing of very substantial assets to the marriage by the husband were sufficient to justify an award departing from equality in his favour (60%/40%). . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Zyk v Zyk 15-Dec-1995
Austlii (Family Court of Australia) Property Settlement – Global or asset by asset approach – Treatment of lottery winnings The wife appealed against orders for the alteration of the property interests. The . .
Cited – White v White HL 26-Oct-2000
The couple going through the divorce each had substantial farms and wished to continue farming. It had been a long marriage.
Held: Where a division of the assets of a family would satisfy the reasonable needs of either party on an ancillary . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Cowan v Cowan CA 14-May-2001
When considering the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce, the court’s duty was, within the context of the rules set down by the Act, to impose a fair settlement according to the circumstances. Courts should be careful not to make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.445469