All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Court of Appeal; Arden, Wilson and Toulson LJJ; 4 November 2010)
An ancillary relief order was vitiated by the husband's non-disclosure. The judge considered it unnecessary and inappropriate to set aside entire order and stated that the shares in question were part matrimonial and part non-matrimonial. Had these shares been disclosed, the court would have made a deferred contingent provision for wife, equal to 35% of the net gain in realisable value. The court awarded the wife a lump sum of £481,000. The husband appealed.
Appeal dismissed. It was inconceivable that the original court would not have treated the shares as likely to be of value in future and thus available for sharing. Cases of non-disclosure did not always mean the court had to conduct exercise again and judge was entitled to remedy the defect as he had done.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.
Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement