header-logo header-logo

01 February 2007 / David Burrows
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

finance on family breakdown

EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS

In S v S (M Intervening) [2006] EWHC 2892 (Fam), [2006] All ER (D) 229 (Nov) the wife (W) had retained the former matrimonial home (the property) upon the parties’ divorce in 1989. The husband (H) had a charge-back of one-third realisable when the children ceased to be dependent, W remarried or cohabited permanently or she died—standard Mesher terms. H was required to pay periodical payments for W and the children. In 1993, said W, H agreed to remit his charge on the property if W agreed to forego her entitlement to the arrears then due and to any future payments.

 In 1995 W’s mother (M) moved to and then bought a half-share in the property; but on the assumption of both W and M that H no longer had any charge on, nor other interest in, the property. M said she and H had had separate discussions on the subject. H had not registered his charge with Land Registry. W and M’s agreement was not formalised in

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