header-logo header-logo

Swing of the pendulum

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

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

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
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
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
back-to-top-scroll