AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

AAZ (W) applied for financial orders ancillary to her divorce from BBZ (H). H was the sole director of the second respondent C Ltd, a Cypriot registered company and the trustee of a Bermudian Discretionary Trust (the trust). P Ltd, the third respondent, is a Panamian company which H said was within the trust. P Ltd was said to hold the bulk of the wealth in the case. None of the respondents took any part in the trial. H was in breach of several court orders, including one compelling his personal attendance for the duration of the trial.

H and W had been married since 1993 when the...

Special Contribution: Exceptional qualities

Lehna Hewitt reviews cases where a special contribution argument has been successful, and the outcome in Work v Gray ‘The Court of Appeal reiterated in Work v Gray that the correct approach is to determine whether a contribution is “wholly exceptional” and did not endorse the use of the word “genius”.’It is possible to depart …
This post is only available to members.

Delay: Measuring time

Matthew Taylor looks at delay in financial proceedings and the more generous approach taken by the court in Briers v Briers ‘The judgment in Briers makes it clear that a delay in launching an application does not prevent the court making an award on a sharing basis.’It seems that, much like buses, you wait an …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Two worlds

Fiona O’Sullivan, Mark Surguy and Gareth Griffiths compare and contrast the approaches to privacy and disclosure in family and commercial cases ‘Does the duty to make full and frank disclosure trump the employee or director’s duties to keep confidential information about the company confidential?’There is a tension between the duties owed by commercial entrepreneurs, who …
This post is only available to members.

Business Assets: Back to reality

Joanne Green looks at business assets including valuations, issues of liquidity and the options available to the court ‘When deciding how to deal with the business assets, the court should first consider whether there are any available funds in the business and if there are, the most tax-efficient way of extracting them from the business.’When …
This post is only available to members.

Media Access: Private affairs

Charlotte Conner summarises the diverging approaches of the judiciary to media access and privacy and the implications for the parties ‘Where parties are compelled to provide details of their economic circumstances, most would be alarmed to think that it could all be made public.’Restrictions on the reporting of financial remedy proceedings by the press have …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Continuum or new venture?

Joanne Hall summarises the courts’ approach to post-separation growth in assets and the diverging views of the judiciary ‘The judgment in JB v MB reinforces that the law on post-separation accrual is highly fact specific and discretionary but must also be consistent and predictable.’ If the title of this article sounds like a Star Trek …
This post is only available to members.

Expert Evidence: Following the rules

Fiona Wood looks at the need to comply with the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and best practice when instructing experts in financial cases ‘It is not always possible to agree the joint letter of instruction to a single joint expert and the court may be asked to settle the letter of instruction.’It is often necessary …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Extra special

Claire Reid looks at what is required for the court to conclude that a party has made a stellar contribution ‘The difficulty in comparing different contributions risks discrimination against homemakers. This unfortunate application of the law generates a distasteful distinction in the 21st century.’ In Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] one of the principal issues considered …
This post is only available to members.

V v T & anr [2014] EWHC 3432 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2015 #146

The claimant was the settlor of three trusts and applied, under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, for approval of similar arrangements for the benefit of minor beneficiaries under the trust and for future, yet unborn, beneficiaries under the trust.

The principal defendants were the trustees, the adult beneficiaries (who consented to the proposed arrangements) and the minor beneficiaries, acting through their litigation friend.

Before the hearing the parties had contact Chancery Listing and obtained agreement that the cases would be listed for hearing with initials ...