header-logo header-logo

23 February 2024
Issue: 8060 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Divvying up assets from the in-between divorce period

160019

Time marches on, especially for ex-couples waiting for financial remedies proceedings. This creates difficulties

In this week’s NLJ, Catherine Doherty Montanaro, associate in the family law team at Penningtons Manches Cooper, notes that couples are likely to have been separated for many months, if not years, by the time their financial remedies application is considered by a judge

Montanaro writes that, while it is established law that assets built up during marriage are to be shared equally, ‘the treatment of assets amassed, and income earned, during any period of separation is less certain. Murkier still is the issue of deferred consideration, particularly insofar as it relates to an asset which is referable to the marital partnership, but receipt of which is dependent upon conditions to be fulfilled by one spouse post-separation, without contribution from the other.’

The author looks at relevant case law across a range of situations.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll