header-logo header-logo

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

Keeping up with the Joneses

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

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