header-logo header-logo

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

The big bonus split

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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll