header-logo header-logo

22 April 2016 / Bethan Thomas
Issue: 7695 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Giving back

Bethan Thomas examines the court’s approach to “add backs” here and in Australia

It is a difficult job for a family lawyer to advise a new client on the issue of fault and their spouse’s conduct. Quite often clients assume that if the other spouse is at fault, then they should pay for the costs of any financial proceedings. This is not however the case. What constitutes conduct which a court can take into account has changed over the years. Marital conduct, such as having an affair will not itself lead to securing a greater share of the assets in financial proceedings, but there are types of conduct which can result in one spouse being awarded a greater share of the marital assets.

Too inequitable to disregard

The conduct as defined by s 25 (g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 has to be too inequitable to disregard. What does this mean? How much notice will a court take of gambling, drug taking, and prostitution? A case dating back to 1973 ( Wachtel & Wachtel [1973] EWCA

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll