header-logo header-logo

All about the evidence

15 March 2013 / Anna Heenan
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail

Anna Heenan examines the implications of the latest in a long line of inherited assets cases

The decision in Davies v Davies [2012] EWCA Civ 1641 is likely to be of use to practitioners for its consideration of how to deal with an inherited business to which the wife had made a significant contribution during a short marriage. The case also highlights the importance of valuation evidence in cases dealing with inherited assets, echoing the emphasis on case preparation in decisions such as X v X [2012] EWHC 538 (Fam) and B v B [2012] EWHC 314 in the early part of 2012.

Background

The full details of the parties’ financial position are not set out in the judgment. However, the key asset for the purposes of the appeal was a successful London hotel, owned and run by the husband.

It is important to be aware of the distinction between the hotel business and the buildings occupied by that business (the premises). The hotel business was originally set up

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll