All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
'This is a landmark case as it involves many complicated issues, but it seems that all too often partners (whether in marriage or civil partnerships) are trying to get out of their obligations by being deliberately obstructive or dishonest about their wealth and assets.Ms Roocroft and Ms Ainscow began their relationship in 1991 and, after living together for several years, converted to a civil partnership in 2008. During the dissolution and financial proceedings in 2010 following their separation, Ms Roocroft alleges she was frozen out of the couple's jointly acquired finances and her ex-partner subsequently misled the court as to the extent of the assets available for distribution, saying her wealth had been adversely affected by the global recession.
'There have been many high profile cases over the past few years where the courts have shown they will not tolerate people trying to hide their wealth in businesses or refusing to pay their settlements and maintenance.
'Last year's judgment in the Supreme Court cases of Sharland and Gohil sent out a clear message that dishonesty will not be tolerated, and this should be no different for civil partnerships.
'Ms Roocroft simply wants the chance to discuss a fair settlement based on the true disclosure of the assets built up during the couple's 19-year relationship.'
Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement