header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011 / Catherine Costley
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Swing of the pendulum

How can a divorcing couple’s reasonable needs be informed
by pre-marital property? Catherine Costley investigates

The decision of Mostyn J in the recent case of N v F [2011] EWHC 586 Fam, provides helpful guidance to practitioners considering the way in which the existence of pre-marital assets should be reflected in the division of matrimonial assets. Mostyn J follows the procedure described by Wilson LJ in Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] All ER (D) 231 (Jan) but, when cross-checking the outcome of that analysis against the parties’ needs, acknowledges that pre-marital assets, which may well be ring-fenced in the ultimate division, can inform the reasonable needs of the parties.

Background

The parties had been married for 16 years and had two children. At the date of the marriage in 1993 the husband had assets worth £2.116m. By the time of the breakdown of the marriage the assets of the parties were valued at £9.714m.  The husband proposed that the wife should receive 43% of the assets leaving him with 57%.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll