Both husband and wife had independent means, and neither worked. The wife had spent pounds 100,000k on Children Act proceedings, and sought ancillary relief. The judge had made an order on capital to reflect the fact that if those costs had not been spent W would have had the money available as capital.
Held: Whilst the judge may have wrongly included the costs sum, he had at the same time undervalued W’s income from investments. It was also said that the provision of a house under a trust was incompatible with the need for a clean break, as to which ‘I see no error of principle in selecting a settlement order for the provision of accommodation in a clean break case. Such a choice may be unusual and may need to be justified by exceptional features, but it is plainly within the ambit of judicial choice. ‘ As to the misconduct of the proceedings alleged by H: ‘The criterion of conduct under Section 25 (2) (g) of the Act is clearly stated to be relevant if the court concludes that it would be inequitable to disregard it. But it does seem to me that a clear distinction must be drawn in all these cases between what might loosely be described as marital conduct and what might conveniently be described as litigation conduct. It seems to me as a matter of construction that Section 25 (2) (g) is plainly aimed at marital misconduct. If the applicant’s misconduct is limited to misconduct within the ancillary relief case long after the separation of the parties, it is, in my judgment, questionable whether that factor should go to diminish the quantum of the financial award. ‘ The judge should however have created a trust reverting to the child rather than a charge.
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Civ 994, [1998] 2 FLR 418, [1999] 1 FCR 133, [1998] Fam Law 521
Statutes:
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – P v P (Financial Provision: Non-disclosure) 1994
The applicant wife had been shown to have been guilty of considerable misconduct of the financial case. It was submitted that, as a result of that misconduct, the court should reduce the wife’s award on the application of the Section 25(2)(g) . .
Cited – M v M 1995
The court considered the consequences of mis-disclosure in ancillary relief proceedings. Thorpe J said: ‘Conduct is only relevant in so far as the wife relies upon the manner in which the husband has conducted these proceedings. Ordinarily speaking, . .
Cited – Lord Lilford v Glyn CA 1979
The judge had ordered the father to make money settlements on his daughters which had no relation to accommodation or their need during minority.
Held: The judge had gone quite ouside the jurisdiction of the Act, and the appeal succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140861