Wells v Wells: CA 20 Mar 2002

The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H’s income substantially reduced.The judge had achieved a clean break by allocating properties to the respective parties, giving priority to the children who would live with W in the matrimonial home. H appealed saying that the judge had provided for the wife, and given what was left to the hudband.
Held: W had been left secure, with H bearing substantial risks dependent upon the future of the business. However H had been concerned to keep his business. The judge had failed to address the issue of the husband’s needs, and the periodical payments for the children were unsustainable. The order was varied.
[2002] EWCA Civ 476, [2002] EWCA Civ 475, [2002] 2 FLR 97
Bailii, Bailii
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 825
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLeadbeater v Leadbeater 1985
The court considered the case of a couple, in their mid-forties. Both had previously been married and both their former spouses married each other. They enjoyed a high standard of living. W brought with her two (2) adopted children from the former . .

Cited by:
CitedSorrell v Sorrell FD 29-Jul-2005
The parties contested ancillary relief on their divorce. The marriage had been very long, and the assets were very substantial. The husband contended that these assets represented an exceptional contribution on his part.
Held: In this case an . .
CitedMiller 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 . .
CitedMyerson v Myerson (No 2) CA 1-Apr-2009
The couple had compromised a very substantial ancillary relief claim on divorce, but the husband now said that the value of the shareholdings from which payment was to be made had collapsed.
Held: His appeal was dismissed. The principles for . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.216999