Shaw v Shaw: CA 31 Jul 2002

Thorpe LJ said it was difficult to see how a failure to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings could be both substantial and unintentional.
As to Bodey J’s analysis of the power to vary an award of a lump sum in Westbury: ‘I am in complete agreement with that approach. It is frequently the case that the wife’s entitlement is expressed as a lump sum payable by two instalments where the husband’s ability to pay cash is dependent upon realisations whether of land, shares or chattels. That fortuitous circumstance, reflected in an order drawn to accommodate the payer, should not, in my judgment, in any way widen the payer’s opportunity to reopen the quantum issue whether in reliance upon Barder v Calouri or Levesy v Jenkins.’
Thorpe LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1298, [2002] 2 FLR 1204, [2002] 3 FCR 298
England and Wales
ApprovedWestbury v Sampson CA 23-Mar-2001
The claimant was advised to accept a consent order that his wife should pay him a capital sum in the divorce, but by instalments. The wife later successfully applied to have the sum reduced. He sought to claim against his former solicitors for not . .
CitedBarder v Calouri HL 1987
In divorce proceedings, the husband transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the wife who had been awarded care and control of the two children of the family. The order was made on 20th February 1985 and on 25th March an appalling tragedy . .

Cited by:
CitedJudge 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.188946