All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(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.
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P