header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

A licence to spend?

Edward Heaton considers a surprising case that illustrates how difficult it is to run a successful add-back argument

This article considers the recent High Court decision in the case of MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 251 (Mar), in which Mr Justice Moor considered, among other things, the extent to which heavy expenditure by the husband, post separation, should be taken into account in the distribution of assets on divorce.

The case highlights the difficulties involved in running a successful “add-back” argument and may come as a surprise to the casual observer.

Background

The husband was 62 and was the managing director of a property maintenance company in which he had a 95% shareholding. The wife was soon to be 61 and was both the company secretary and the financial control manager of the company. She owned the remaining 5% of the shares.

The parties were married in 1972 and had separated some 40 years later in 2012.

The entirety of the financial resources available to the parties had been generated during the course of the marriage. Moor J

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll