All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(2 March 2005; Munby J; Family Division)  2 FLR 487
A confiscation order was a highly relevant factor when considering the application of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, not merely when considering the husband's financial obligations, but also as conduct of the husband which it would be inequitable to disregard. There was no general discretionary power in either the Adminstrative Court or the Family Division to exonerate the defendant from the consequences of a confiscation order, or to ameliorate those consequences merely because it might be fair or just to do so. With or without the confiscation order the instant case was not a needs based case, but a case for equal division of the assets, and the confiscation order should be met out of the husband's share of the assets, notwithstanding that this would leave him with only his pension income to rely upon.
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of judicially approved case reports, covering all areas...