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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll