Jonathan Herring claims that it’s a divorce lawyer’s world
When a judgment on ancillary opens with an apology to the reader for its length, you are well warned and a trip to the coffee machine is entirely appropriate.
In the case of J v J [2009] EWHC 2654 (Fam) the warning is justified, as would be the coffee.
The judgment comes in at well over 100 pages and a little under 500 paragraphs. In it Charles J seeks to summarise the current state of play as regards “big money” cases. As he is one of the leading Family Division judges dealing with cases of this kind, it is a decision that deserves careful attention.
The facts
The facts of this case are complex and as our main interest is in the legal principles, they will be summarised briefly.
The husband and wife married in 1996, when they were 44 and 30 respectively. For both it was a second marriage. Nine and a half years later the marriage came to an end. The parties soon agreed that a clean break settlement was appropriate. The
