header-logo header-logo

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

All about the evidence

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll