Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2018 #173

Mrs Akhter (A) and Mr Khan (K) underwent an Islamic marriage ceremony in England in 1998. They then considered themselves husband and wife and were treated as such by their families, community and state authorities. They had four children. Despite requests by A no civil ceremony was ever undertaken. The parties lived in Dubai between 2005 and 2011 and were treated as married by the UAE authorities, to whom they presented their Islamic marriage certificate.

A petitioned for divorce in 2016. K applied to strike out the petition on the basis that the parties had not entered a valid m...

Pre-Nuptial Agreements: Turning of the tide

Suzanne Todd and Luca Del Panta examine the future of pre-nups in the light of the Law Commission’s report ‘“Needs” in the context of a pre-nuptial agreement can be significantly less than they would otherwise be. But where the guillotine falls in any given case is intensely fact-specific.’ When, in October 2010, the Supreme Court …
This post is only available to members.

Berger v Berger [2013] EWCA Civ 1305

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

The appellant, who was in her mid-80s and in poor health, was the widow of the deceased who had died on 26 June 2005. Both parties had children by previous marriages, and were together for 36 years. The deceased’s estate totalled approximately £7.5m and consisted of a large matrimonial home in Surrey, a half share in a property in Arizona, three properties in London and a controlling holding of shares in a property development company. By his last will (the will) the deceased, after appointing the appellant and his two sons to be executors and trustees, gave his share in the proper...

Trusts And Divorce: Piercing the corporate veil

Prest shows that family judges must uphold company law when considering what constitutes the matrimonial pot, as James Copson discusses Where Family Division judges have fallen into error time and again has been their reliance on what Cumming-Bruce LJ referred to as ‘abundant authority’ in Nicholas that the veil can be lifted if there are …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Building fences

Tracey Dargan and Nathaniel Groarke summarise the courts’ approach to pre-acquired and inherited assets In N v F, Mostyn J stated that he would have excluded more of the husband’s pre-marital assets were it not for the fact that such assets were required to meet the wife’s needs. A number of recent reported cases have …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Defining disclosure

Patricia Robinson considers best practice when dealing with disclosure The parties’ duty to the court to provide full, frank and clear disclosure is absolute, and also a breach by commission is serious and amounts to plain perjury, whereas a breach by omission can be excused as an oversight. As set out in the Family Procedure …
This post is only available to members.

International Focus: A rare beast

In the concluding comparison of approaches to spousal maintenance Julian Bremner, Marjet van Yperen-Groenleer and Kate Mooney examine the Australian system and a range of case studies Case law available from the new national scheme in Australia suggests that, like married couples, maintenance does not loom large as an issue for separating cohabitants. In part …
This post is only available to members.

Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2012 #121

Mrs Barbara Lilleyman applied for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband Mr Roy Lilleyman pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act). Nigel and Christopher Lilleyman, who were Mr Lilleyman’s sons from a previous marriage, were the executors of Mr Lilleyman’s estate under his will dated 20 May 2008. Nigel and Christopher Littleman were the principal beneficiaries of Mr Lilleyman’s estate and were the defendants to Mrs Lilleyman’s application.

Mr and Mrs Lilleyman had each been married pre...

Marital Agreements: Autonomous issues

Amy Harris considers the post- Radmacher approach to marital agreements ‘While a nuptial agreement is a relevant factor, the court will determine the award to be made by reference to the provisions of the MCA 1973.’ The Supreme Court in Granatino v Radmacher [2010] held that: … the court should give effect to a nuptial …
This post is only available to members.

Financial Provision: Needs must

Clare Williams analyses the courts’ approach in a limited assets case and the correct procedure on appeal ‘In a case where needs were so utterly dominant and resources so tight, it may come as a surprise that any consideration of pre-marital contributions was on the table.’ Family lawyers often complain about the remoteness of the …
This post is only available to members.