Smith v Smith: 1945

Denning J said: where a husband makes a continuing provision for the future needs of his wife in her character as a wife, which is still continuing when the marriage is dissolved, the provision is a `settlement’ which can be brought before the court to see whether the provision should continue now that she has ceased to be a wife. The same applies to a provision by a wife for her husband or by each or either for both. The provision usually takes the form of periodical payments either with the intervention of trustees as in an ordinary marriage settlement, or without them as in a separation deed or a bond; but it may take other forms. The transfer of an investment into a wife’s name whether it be a house or shares, or an annuity, seems to me to be in its nature just as much a continuing provision for her future needs as is a periodical payment. The fact that it is made for no consideration other than natural affection and is in that sense a gift does not mean that it is not a `settlement’.’
Denning J
[1945] 1 All ER 584
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.652156