header-logo header-logo

The big bonus split

07 March 2014 / Robert Micklem , Lucy Marks
Issue: 7597 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
web_micklam_marks

How do the courts treat post-separation earnings? Robert Micklem & Lucy Marks report

It is not uncommon for one person in a divorce to earn a bonus between the date of separation and final settlement on divorce. With bonuses often forming a large part of the available family assets, many clients want to know how such sums will be treated by the court when it comes to deal with a final settlement.

 

Unsurprisingly, given the discretionary nature of the court, the answer is not straightforward, but the recent case of H v W [2013] EWHC 4105 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 249 (Dec) in which this firm acted for the husband, has provided some clarity.

Matrimonial or non-matrimonial property

Ideally a spouse in the midst of divorce proceedings would wish to claim that any money earned post-separation should be treated as non-matrimonial property and thereby should be ring-fenced from the divisible wealth. However, even non-matrimonial property can be made available for distribution.

In N v F (Financial Order: Pre Acquired Wealth)

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll