header-logo header-logo

Matrimonial property

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

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll