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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll