header-logo header-logo

Keeping up with the Joneses

24 February 2011 / Gary Yan , Tom Phillips
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Gary Yan & Tom Phillips provide a cross-check on ring fencing assets

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] All ER (D) 231 (Jan) reinforces the principle that certain assets can be ring-fenced, provided that the needs of the parties are met by division of matrimonial assets.

At the time of the parties’ marriage, the husband had a business which had been in operation for 10 years and which supplied gases and equipment to the North Sea oil industry. The husband and wife separated in 2006 after 10 years of marriage. In 2007, the husband sold his business for £32m, of which he personally received £25m net.

One of the central issues in the case was the valuation of the husband’s business at the time of the marriage in 1996, and how much of the business sale proceeds could be excluded from the matrimonial pot.

At the final hearing, Charles J found that 60% of the value of the business (c£15m)

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll