Financial orders: A clear purpose?

Nicola Meldrum and Nasbin Begum look at recitals in financial orders and whether they are contractual agreements or enforceable in the same way as orders In BSA v NVT, Williams J considered the relevant law, finding that recitals could be enforced as if they were part of the order itself where the court otherwise had …
This post is only available to members.

Disclosure: No place to hide

Marilyn Bell provides a recap on the duty of financial disclosure, and the remedies available to combat incomplete disclosure ‘The court will look at the facts at the time the order was made, not with the benefit of hindsight.’ The parties to a divorce may provide financial disclosure voluntarily, or as part of court proceedings. …
This post is only available to members.

Procedure: The last word?

Elspeth Kinder and Clare Williams consider the approach to new evidence where there has been a finding of fact in financial remedy proceedings ‘The court is required to consider whether a rehearing of an issue will result in a different finding, beyond the fact that different judges will sometimes reach different decisions on the same …
This post is only available to members.

Anderson v Spencer [2018] EWCA Civ 100

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

The mother and executor (V) of the deceased appealed against an order that a DNA sample from the deceased, held by a hospital, be tested against the respondent (D), to determine whether he was the son of the deceased. The deceased had suffered from an hereditary form of bowel cancer called Lynch Syndrome, and so D wanted to discover if he was at risk of this condition developing. V refused consent. D applied for a declaration of paternity under s55A Family Law Act 1986, in the context of which he sought an order for testing of the DNA sample collected by the hospital during the ...

Compromise agreements: No second chances

Andrew Roy considers the implications of a recent High Court decision on impecuniosity ‘Had the claimant been impecunious his proper course, with reference to the need for finality in litigation, was to seek an adjournment of the hearing below.‘ In Wadhwani v Ingenious Media Holdings Ltd [2018] HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting as a judge of the …
This post is only available to members.

Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

The testatrix (T) died in 2004 leaving an adult daughter (C) from whom she had been estranged for 26 years. C had left home aged 17 to live with her boyfriend (B), of whom T disapproved. B later became C’s husband and they had five children. At the time of T’s death, C and her family lived in straitened financial circumstances: they lived in a house rented from a housing association, were reliant on benefits save for the husband’s intermittent work as a supporting actor and could not afford new household equipment or family holidays.

During the lifelong estrangem...

Davis v Wiggett [2016] UKUT 358 (TCC)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2016 #164

Mr Davis employed Mr Wiggett in his building business from 2007 to 2011. According to Mr Wiggett, they had a common intention to purchase a flat, do it up and let it out. As he already had a mortgage, 68b Queen’s Road, Cheltenham (the flat) was bought in Mr Davis’ sole name for £137,500 in 2008 and, by virtue of their express agreement, on which he relied to his detriment by contributing to the purchase price and working on the property, Mr Wiggett claimed to be a beneficial co-owner under a common intention constructive trust and entitled to half of the equity. Mr Davis, on ...

Non-Disclosure: The Watergate effect

Max Lewis reflects on the impact of Sharland and Gohil and outlines the key points applied by the court in AB v CD ‘Inferences can be drawn from a failure to properly answer questions about post-order transactions that are adverse to what that party said about the position at the time of the order.’It is …
This post is only available to members.

Barnes v Phillips [2015] EWCA Civ 1056

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2016 #156

88 Leyland Road, London (property) was purchased by the parties in January 1996 for approximately £135,000 using approximately £25,000 from their savings for the deposit and taking out a joint repayment mortgage for the balance with HSBC. It was registered in their names as joint tenants. Both contributed to the cost of installing double glazing, resurfacing the driveway and landscaping the garden. The appellant, who had acquired other buy-to-let properties in his sole name, told the respondent in early 2005 that he wanted to remortgage the property because of debt problems. The property...

Disclosure: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

Toby Hales analyses whether the Supreme Court decisions in Gohil and Sharland will finally cheat-proof family justice ‘While every divorcing or separating couple should be encouraged to settle their finances by agreement, the jurisdiction to make such an agreement into an order lies with the court and the court alone.’ There were more than a …
This post is only available to members.