Click the case name for better results:

Burrows v Burrows: FD 24 Mar 1999

An award was made for the husband to pay 50% of maximum lump sum and periodical payments of half pension income and other payments. This reflected the wife’s contribution through the marriage, allowing the husband to build his business. Citations: Gazette 24-Mar-1999 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25B 25C 25D Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family … Continue reading Burrows v Burrows: FD 24 Mar 1999

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 gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Piglowska v Piglowski: HL 24 Jun 1999

No Presumption of House for both Parties When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be reluctant to allow repeated appeals … Continue reading Piglowska v Piglowski: HL 24 Jun 1999

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A; A v A: FD 18 Apr 2002

The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A; A v A: FD 18 Apr 2002

Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another: HL 29 Jul 1998

A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession proceedings issued by the landlord could … Continue reading Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another: HL 29 Jul 1998

Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000

On a divorce where there were fairly substantial sums at issue, the two parties argued for different bases for calculation of the wife’s interests, either her reasonable needs according to Duxbury tables, or otherwise to reflect the particular facts. Held: The Ogden tables should not be preferred in matrimonial proceedings. In substantial asset cases two … Continue reading Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

B v B: FD 5 May 1993

A pension fund with only one member can be a post nuptial settlement and open to variation in ancillary proceedings in a divorce. Citations: Independent 14-May-1993, Times 05-May-1993 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78044

H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property. Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take … Continue reading H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

Thompson v Thompson: CA 1986

An order had been made in 1981 for the home not to be sold until the youngest child had attained the age of 17 ‘or further order’. The wife, who was living in the home with the children, against a judge’s determination that he had no jurisdiction to . .

Birch v Birch: SC 26 Jul 2017

The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .

Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Another: CA 9 Nov 2005

The wife sought to continue her claim for ancillary relief despite the death of her husband, the former King of Saudi Arabia. Held: The court’s jurisdiction over the King had been challenged. However the claimants claim now abated on the death of the king, and could not proceed: ‘a claim for financial provision between living … Continue reading Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Another: CA 9 Nov 2005

Moody v Stevenson: CA 12 Jul 1991

The widower aged 81, appealed against refusal of provision under the 1975 Act from his wife’s estate. She had left him nothing. The judge at first instance had found, applying Styler, that her treatment was not unreasonable, and that therefore no jurisdiction to make an award arose. Held: The court considered the application of section … Continue reading Moody v Stevenson: CA 12 Jul 1991

Rockliff v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jun 2009

FTTTx Income tax – pension payable to husband – claim that half of pension should be assessed on wife – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 sections 1 and 19, Schedule E paragraph 2 – Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 sections 569, 571 and 572 – Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sections 21A and … Continue reading Rockliff v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jun 2009

Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another: FD 12 Apr 2006

The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so far as it failed to recognise same sex marriages. She now sought … Continue reading Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another: FD 12 Apr 2006

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 assets. Held: Asking what would be the approach of an English court, a request would not be met … Continue reading Charman v Charman: CA 20 Dec 2005

H v H: FD 27 Nov 2014

Application under section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: ‘That section of the act was recently described in the Supreme Court as ‘moribund’. This case has demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case.’ Judges: Booth HHJ Citations: [2015] EWHC B24 (Fam) Links: Bailii Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 27 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading H v H: FD 27 Nov 2014

P v P (Inherited Property): FD 2005

The court considered an application for ancillary relief where one party had inherited a family farm. Held: The nature and source of the parties’ property are matter to be taken into account when determining the requirements of fairness. Judges: Munby J Citations: [2005] 1 FLR 576 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading P v P (Inherited Property): FD 2005

A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005

The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge looked properly at the issues identified in the Act, the order would have been different. Held: The … Continue reading A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005

G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement): CA 28 Jun 2000

The parties had been married before and had signed a prenuptial agreement. Held: Thorpe LJ set out the duties of a judge in ancillary relief applications: ‘A judge has to do fairness between the parties, having regard to all the circumstances. He must be free to include within that discretionary review the factors which compelled … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement): CA 28 Jun 2000

McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income. Held: The distinction between capital and income awards is no longer conclusive, having arisen in part from historical … Continue reading McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

SRJ v DWJ (Financial Provision): CA 20 Oct 1999

There is no presumption in favour of a clean break provision in an ancillary relief claim. A nominal award of maintenance was appropriate where the wife’s long dependency and continued responsibility for children made future earning capacity problematic. A dismissal of a claim for maintenance where the wife was relatively mature should not be expected. … Continue reading SRJ v DWJ (Financial Provision): CA 20 Oct 1999

Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company): FD 2001

The nature of the family assets may be taken into account when considering how they are to be divided in ancillary relief proceedings on divorce, where these are businesses which will be crippled or lose much of their value, if disposed of prematurely in order to fund an equal division. Coleridge J said: ‘In the … Continue reading N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company): FD 2001

O’D v O’D: CA 1976

When considering an application for ancillary relief by a wife, the court should consider the wife’s position, ‘not from the narrow point of ‘need’, but to ascertain her reasonable requirements.’ Judges: Ormrod LJ Citations: [1976] Fam 83 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Cited by: Cited – White v White HL 26-Oct-2000 The couple going through … Continue reading O’D v O’D: CA 1976

Re Kumar (A Bankrupt), ex parte Lewis v Kumar: 1993

H had transferred his interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home to W for her promise to have sole liability for the mortgage debt. Nearly a year later her divorce claim for capital provision was dismissed by consent on the basis that H had already transferred his interests to W. H was bankrupted, and his … Continue reading Re Kumar (A Bankrupt), ex parte Lewis v Kumar: 1993

Page v Page: CA 1981

In an ancillary relief application, there was enough capital to provide adequately for both husband and wife. Held: When considering the needs and obligations of the parties a broad view could be taken: (Ormrod LJ) ‘In a case such as this ‘needs’ can be regarded as equivalent to ‘reasonable requirements’, taking into account the other … Continue reading Page v Page: CA 1981

G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

The family assets were in the region of andpound;8.5M. The wife sought a half share. The husband proposed that she should have 40%. The husband had built the family fortune through exceptional hard work and astute business acumen in the field of substantial development and construction projects. The court considered how capital and income could … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984

The husband had forged his wife’s signature on the loan application and on the charge of the house held by himself and his wife as joint tenants. He had left the country, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the charge, and ex parte obtained an order nisi charging the husband’s interest in the house. The … Continue reading First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984

Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness of the marriage. The husband answered to say that she had declared that she would … Continue reading Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction was an infringement of her human rights. Held: Such a relationship is recognised in England as a civil … Continue reading Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

Bellinger v Bellinger: HL 10 Apr 2003

Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible with the claimant’s … Continue reading Bellinger v Bellinger: HL 10 Apr 2003

Rossi v Rossi: FD 26 Jun 2006

W sought to challenge transactions entered into by H anticipating ancillary relief proceedings on their divorce. Nicholas Mostyn QC J said: ‘While of course no rigid rule can be expressed for the infinite variety of facts that arise in ancillary relief cases, I would have thought, generally speaking, that it would be very difficult for … Continue reading Rossi v Rossi: FD 26 Jun 2006

Re Abbot (A Bankrupt), ex parte Trustee Of The Property Of The Bankrupt v Abbot: QBD 1983

An ancillary relief order was made in December 1978, following a compromise agreement. It provided for the sale of the former matrimonial home and the payment to the wife from the proceeds of sale of andpound;18,000. The husband was adjudicated bankrupt in May 1980. The trustee applied for an order declaring that the order was … Continue reading Re Abbot (A Bankrupt), ex parte Trustee Of The Property Of The Bankrupt v Abbot: QBD 1983

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets): CA 19 Mar 2008

The wife appealed an ancillary relief order for equal division on the basis that the judge had failed to allow for the fact that most of the assets had been brought to the marriage by her. Held: Her appeal succeeded. All the assets at the start of the marriage were hers, and the parties had … Continue reading B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets): CA 19 Mar 2008

Judge v Judge and others: CA 19 Dec 2008

The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the Inland Revenue and otherwise in respect of failed business. The husband had prepared … Continue reading Judge v Judge and others: CA 19 Dec 2008

Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the same? The CPS appealed against an order distributing a capital sum to the … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

K, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009

The defendant appealed against orders allowing the use in evidence against him of information provided by him in ancillary relief proceedings, and without prejudice negotations with his wife’s solicitors. Held: The information provided through the formal ancillary relief process had been obtained under compulsion, and the rules had been intended to require full disclosure and … Continue reading K, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009

Wyatt v Vince: SC 11 Mar 2015

Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied for lump sum provision. W appealed against order … Continue reading Wyatt v Vince: SC 11 Mar 2015

Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009

Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the husband. The husband had not had independent legal advice before signing the agreement. Held: … Continue reading Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009

Mubarak v Mubarak: CA 2001

A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources of the … Continue reading Mubarak v Mubarak: CA 2001

Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino: SC 20 Oct 2010

The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, restricting his ancillary relief. Held: H’s appeal failed (Lady Hale dissenting). Separation agreements … Continue reading Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino: SC 20 Oct 2010

Buffery v Buffery: CA 30 Nov 1987

The court considered a petition for divorce beased upon unreasonable behaviour. The Wife petitioner appealed from the decision dismissing her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to the respondent. Held: After discussing O’Neill: ‘one looks to this husband and this wife, or vice versa, but one also looks at what is reasonable. That is … Continue reading Buffery v Buffery: CA 30 Nov 1987

Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Akhter and Another: CA 14 Feb 2020

Islamic Nikah Ceremony did not create a marriage The parties had undertaken, in 1998, an Islamic marriage ceremony, a Nikah. They both knew at the time that to be effective in UK law, there would need to be a civil ceremony, and intended but did not achieve one. The parties having settled their dispute, the … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Akhter and Another: CA 14 Feb 2020

Balraj v Balraj: CA 1980

The husband’s petition was based on section 1(2)(e) of the 1973 Act, namely that he and the wife had lived apart for at least five years. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s rejection of the wife’s opposition to the grant of a decree, which was . .

More Recent Cases

This is a continuation of the list of significant recent cases on our front page. As a most recent case pushes its way to the top, the last on teh front page falls into here. Newest significant cases.

Thomas v Thomas: CA 2 May 1995

H was a wealthy businessman, but, as a member of Lloyds, he had been required to charge the family home to secure potential liabilities. Also, the company of which he was managing director had always paid out only smaller sums by way of dividends, . .

Foster v Foster: CA 16 Apr 2003

The marriage had been short, there were no children, both parties were working, and each could support themselves providing themselves with accomodation. The wife had successfully appealed a finding of the district judge for an equal distribution. . .