header-logo header-logo

Non-matrimonial property: an alternative equality?

29 March 2018 / Rebecca Dziobon , Laura Hughes
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7787_hughes_0

Laura Hughes & Rebecca Dziobon provide an overview on the scope & nature of non-matrimonial property

  • If parties can prove that they have made an unmatched contribution they may be able to ringfence ‘non-matrimonial’ capital to be divided either in part or excluded entirely.

Practitioners are all too aware that there is no accepted definition of ‘non-matrimonial property’. This can become the focal point of negotiations where an equal division of capital is challenged. The debate starts once ‘needs’ have been met and there is surplus capital available to share. Reported decisions tend to relate to the more extreme ‘big money’ cases. However, the principles filter down to everyday cases and this article considers the different types of arguments for seeking a departure from equality.

Under s 25(2)(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the court must consider the ‘contributions’ of the parties when assessing the fair division of assets. The starting (and usually end) point is that equal contributions to a long marital partnership should mean that the ‘fruits’

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll