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

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