header-logo header-logo

26 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family

D v D [2010] EWHC 138 (Fam), [2010] All ER (D) 162 (Mar)

The “need principle” might have a large and informative and possibly determinative part to play in assessing a departure from equality, but an assessment applying the sharing principle in all the circumstances still had to be carried out. A departure from equality would generally not reduce an award below the amount of an award based on need.

When determining whether there should be a clean break, the points to be considered were: (a) the assessment of the risk that the lump sum or lump sums ordered could not be paid absent a sale of the shares or a liquidation of the company; (b) the assessment of the consequences of such a sale should that risk materialise; and (c) the assessment of the fairness of an award premised on a sale of the company at the present time. A true clean break based on a lump sum or two or more lump sums could not be achieved fairly, notwithstanding the advantages to both sides that would flow from such an award.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll