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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll