Fiona Bethel & Hannah Bunker consider the treatment of compensation in ancillary relief
In Daubney v Daubney [1976] FAM 267, the husband (H) and wife (W) had each sustained injuries in a serious road traffic accident (RTA) in 1964 and awarded damages of £4,000 and £3,625 respectively.
H invested his compensation in a “reasonable” business venture which ultimately failed losing all of the £4,000. W faired better, investing her damages in a flat which accumulated equity of £7,800 at the time of hearing.
The marriage broke down in 1967. H submitted that the flat should be taken into account and that he should retain the former matrimonial home with equity of £8,000.
W argued her flat should be excluded as it was the product of her damages. It was held at first instance that the matrimonial home should be transferred to H with a 30% charge to W and that the value of the flat should be excluded from the matrimonial pot as it was not a family asset.
On appeal, (H arguing he should retain the house outright and W cross
