header-logo header-logo

A licence to spend?

26 June 2015 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Edward Heaton considers a surprising case that illustrates how difficult it is to run a successful add-back argument

This article considers the recent High Court decision in the case of MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 251 (Mar), in which Mr Justice Moor considered, among other things, the extent to which heavy expenditure by the husband, post separation, should be taken into account in the distribution of assets on divorce.

The case highlights the difficulties involved in running a successful “add-back” argument and may come as a surprise to the casual observer.

Background

The husband was 62 and was the managing director of a property maintenance company in which he had a 95% shareholding. The wife was soon to be 61 and was both the company secretary and the financial control manager of the company. She owned the remaining 5% of the shares.

The parties were married in 1972 and had separated some 40 years later in 2012.

The entirety of the financial resources available to the parties had

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll