header-logo header-logo

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

A licence to spend?

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll