header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011 / Catherine Costley
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Swing of the pendulum

How can a divorcing couple’s reasonable needs be informed
by pre-marital property? Catherine Costley investigates

The decision of Mostyn J in the recent case of N v F [2011] EWHC 586 Fam, provides helpful guidance to practitioners considering the way in which the existence of pre-marital assets should be reflected in the division of matrimonial assets. Mostyn J follows the procedure described by Wilson LJ in Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] All ER (D) 231 (Jan) but, when cross-checking the outcome of that analysis against the parties’ needs, acknowledges that pre-marital assets, which may well be ring-fenced in the ultimate division, can inform the reasonable needs of the parties.

Background

The parties had been married for 16 years and had two children. At the date of the marriage in 1993 the husband had assets worth £2.116m. By the time of the breakdown of the marriage the assets of the parties were valued at £9.714m.  The husband proposed that the wife should receive 43% of the assets leaving him with 57%. In monetary terms, this approach meant the husband would have

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