header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Divorce law update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Charman and special contribution >>
TRUSTEES IN BANkRUPTCY >>
equal division of assets >>

 

Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] All ER (D) 425 (May)

The much publicised appeal by Mr Charman of an Order made by Mr Justice Coleridge on 27 June 2006 was heard between 6 to 8 March 2007 before the president of the Family Division, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wilson. A judgment of the court was handed down on 24 May 2007.
The parties were married for nearly 28 years. They had two children aged 24 and 20. Mr Charman had enjoyed an extremely successful career in insurance. Coleridge J found that the parties’ assets amounted to £131m of which, upon the agreed basis that Mr Charman would transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home to Mrs Charman, Mrs Charman held £8m and Mr Charman held £123m. Mrs Charman conceded that Mr Charman’s financial contribution had been of such magnitude as to justify a departure from equality. Coleridge J ordered that Mr Charman should make a lump

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll