Special contributions: Consigned to history?

Lisa Churchill highlights how the approach to special contributions has changed over the years and how such contributions have been quantified by the courts The courts are seemingly now more cautious in departing from equality due to the special contribution of one party. Special contribution in a marriage has often been a difficult argument to …
This post is only available to members.

In practice: The winds of change

Suzanne Todd examines family law developments during the millennium so far and what the future holds ‘It is essential for family lawyers to have a bank of highly regarded therapists, counsellors and coaches to whom they can refer clients to ensure that they have the expert advice that they need.’ The 21st century has seen …
This post is only available to members.

Business assets: Sharing the golden goose?

Henry Hood provides insight on the approach to private limited company assets, including valuation and methods of division ‘A clean break can be more difficult to achieve where a company is involved because sharing over time will commonly imply ongoing income payments and a deferred lump sum on sale, or as liquidity allows.’ Coleridge J’s …
This post is only available to members.

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.