LexisLibrary and LexisPSL
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a weekTrial
(Family Division; Moylan J; 26 March 2008)
In a case in which the marriage had lasted 14 years but the husband's business had been running for over 33 years, the judge awarded the wife £1.5 million, only 32% of the total assets but 67% of the non-business wealth, plus periodical payments of £60,000 pa for herself and £20,000 pa for the children, expressing concern at the forensic approach of the parties. The court was engaged in a broad analysis not a detailed accounting exercise. The purpose of valuations was to assist the court in testing the fairness of the proposed outcome, not to ensure mathematical/accounting accuracy, invariably no more than a chimera. Further, to seek to construct the whole edifice of an award on a business valuation, which was no more than a broad or even very broad guide, was to risk creating an edifice that was unsound and hence likely to be unfair. The parties had adopted extreme positions; this did not assist the court, or the parties themselves, in seeking to achieve a result that was fair both in outcome and in the manner in which it had been achieved. This was not a clean break case; both parties had been seeking to achieve an unrealistic outcome. Where there was both a capital award and a continuing order for periodical payments, the assessmet of the fairness of the capital award became more complex.
This work provides commentary, checklists, procedural guides and precedents on the subject in a...