‘Stuart Clark, Associate Solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP considers the implications of increased use of s.37 MCA 1973 in setting aside payments on account of costs in financial remedies cases.’
Family Law Week, 20th August 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘When the court makes or approves a financial order, there is often not enough money in the matrimonial pot to house both parties and any children in owner-occupied accommodation. An outright transfer to one of the parties of what may be the only significant asset may be quite unfair to the other party (as in Clutton v Clutton – [1991] 1 All ER 340 (CA)). An immediate sale of the matrimonial home could be futile, in that both parties may have to move into rented accommodation, with geographical consequences including potential disruption to any children’s education. The parties each, of course need to take tax advice to ensure that liabilities for e.g. CGT (upon transfer / sale) and Inheritance Tax (upon creation of the trust and every ten-year anniversary thereof).’
Tanfield Chambers, 18th June 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Spouses can no longer expect full financial support from their ex-partners once their children reach age seven. Experts expect a rush to renegotiate.’
Daily Telegraph, 24th February 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Separating couples will be given clear new guidelines setting out what they should expect when property and income is distributed by the courts, Simon Hughes has announced.’
Ministry of Justice, 17th April 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“The former wife of an RAF squadron leader is taking on the Ministry of Defence in a High Court test case, claiming that a move to evict her — after her husband walked out — violates her human rights.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Henry Clayton of 4 Paper Buildings outlines the consequences where a party to financial remedy proceedings becomes bankrupt after the making of a final order.”
Family Law Week, 28th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“To widespread surprise, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) although on a different basis from the decision of Mr Justice Moylan at first instance. For those law “nerds” amongst us, the new Supreme Court live feed added an extra frisson, with social media abuzz with speculation as to what it might mean that Lord Sumption was to give the lead judgment. It quickly became clear that this may be a red herring (for Lady Hale to give the lead judgment would have been too obvious a clue). However, a more detailed consideration of the judgment may lead us to conclude that Lord Sumption was a clue indeed and that the corporate veil has survived fully intact, albeit it with the Supreme Court wedging open some doors for family lawyers on the issues of trusts and inferences to be drawn from both pre- and post-litigation behaviour.”
New Law Journal, 27th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237
“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion’ for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.”
Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 14th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“Does a one-man company metamorphose into one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets is his wife?”
The Guardian, 10th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Millionaire businessmen will be able to ‘stick two fingers up’ at judges if the highest court in the land rules against a former wife in a high-profile divorce case this week, her lawyers said yesterday.”
The Independent, 9th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Emily Marshall, family law professional support lawyer at Irwin Mitchell considers the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in a commercial case on the forthcoming appeal in the Petrodel appeal, to be heard in March.”
Family Law Week, 11th February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
For a long time family lawyers and the family courts have made the best of the creaking mechanism for financial provision that is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (much amended…). Procedural changes are made but in terms of the interpretation of the MCA 1973 itself, case law is king. The family courts “make do and mend” so that the nearly 40-year-old primary legislation is fit for purpose. But the Court of Appeal last week decided that that the company law case of Salomon v A Salomon and Company, Limited [1897] AC 22 applies as much in the disposition of ancillary relief proceedings as in other proceedings.
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st November 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Lawyers have branded as a ‘cheat’s charter’ a Court of Appeal landmark ruling that an oil tycoon need not hand over to his wife £17.5m in assets held by his companies.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st November 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Alison Burge, barrister, of Pump Court Chambers analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision in the watershed case of Petrodel v Prest.”
Family Law Week, 31st October 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.com
Prest v Prest and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1395; [2012] WLR (D) 296
“The court had no jurisdiction in ancillary relief proceedings under section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to order a party (the husband) to transfer to the wife assets held by companies of which the husband was the controller or controlling shareholder, on the basis of that he was ‘entitled’ to them.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A ‘very wealthy’ Russian businessman today lost a legal fight with his ex-wife over the ownership of a house in London worth millions of pounds.”
The Independent, 17th September 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024