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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll