How generously are needs interpreted in big money cases, asks Matilda Kay
- The factors a court takes into account when considering income needs in cases involving substantial assets.
- The importance, for family practitioners, of constructing a carefully considered budget and the consequences of failing to do so.
“If…a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget.” This was Bennett J’s warning to family practitioners in McCartney v Mills McCartney [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam), [2008] All ER (D) 269 (Mar) about the approach the court will take towards an overinflated budget.
This article shall explore income needs in cases involving substantial assets (known as big money cases) and will focus on the factors a court takes into account when considering needs and investigating the importance, for family practitioners, of constructing a carefully considered budget and the consequences of failing to do so.
BD v FD
Bennett J’s warning did not stop the wife in the recent
