header-logo header-logo

28 October 2011
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Matrimonial property

S v AG (financial remedy: lottery prize) [2011] EWHC 2637 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 143 (Oct)

Whether a lottery prize was to be regarded as matrimonial or non matrimonial property was highly fact-specific and did not depend centrally on the origin of the amount used to purchase the lottery ticket. If the parties were in effect operating a syndicate, whether formal or informal, where both were aware that tickets were being bought and where both had agreed tacitly or expressly to their purchase, then it was easy to see that prize as a joint venture and therefore as matrimonial property. On the other hand, if one party was unilaterally buying tickets, from his or her owned income, without the knowledge of the other party, then it was equally easy to see the prize as a receipt by that party alone akin to an external donation, and therefore as non-matrimonial property. That case would be fortified if the party in question was buying the tickets as part of a syndicate with others, and more so if the

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