ANCILLARY RELIEF: M v M [2006] EWCA Civ 1852

02 DEC 2007

(Court of Appeal; Scott Baker and Wall LJJ; 6 December 2006)

In a case concerning the terms of sale of matrimonial property including land with planning permission, the wife was entitled to refuse the husband's offer to purchase the land, on the grounds that she: was not to receive a 10% deposit; had not been offered an indemnity; and did not trust the husband. The husband's previous litigation misconduct was relevant in this regard. Had the husband behaved properly during the proceedings, had he given full frank and clear disclosure, had he not breached his undertakings and dissipated funds, he could now have argued that it was the wife who was being unreasonable in rejecting his proposals. If ever there was a case that pointed the moral of financial probity in ancillary relief proceedings as important, this was that case.

Red Book Plus

Red Book Plus

Family Court Essential Materials

This ready reference guide for all family court practitioners and judges provides a portable...

Family Court Practice 2016, The

(Red Book)

Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement

More Info from £465.00
Available in Family Law Online