header-logo header-logo

17 May 2007 / Joanne Edwards , James Brown
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Features , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Divorce law update

H v H

The latest divorce case to generate a flurry of media interest has been H v H [2007] EWHC 459 (Fam), [2007] All ER (D) 88 (Apr) heard by the Mr Justice Charles in the High Court.

The relevance of the case is the fact that it considers how a husband’s future income should be applied in those cases where there are sufficient capital assets for a clean break to take place but the husband has a substantial income going forwards.

The husband and wife married in 1985 and had four children. It is a “big money case” with substantial wealth built up during the course of the marriage as a result of the significant earnings of the husband as a banker. The wife had been a teacher and stopped work relatively soon after the start of the parties’ marriage.

Following the parties’ separation, the husband continued to work, enjoying a high level of remuneration. The wife continued to act as the primary caretaker of the children—aged 18, 14, 11

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll