Upload
uttara
View
28
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Financial Remedies Update 13 October 2011 Michael Horton. CHAMBERS. Overview. Case law last 12 months ish Family Procedure Rules. CHAMBERS. International element. News report 5 September 2011 French court orders H to pay W €10,000 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Financial Remedies Update13 October 2011Michael Horton
CHAMBERS
2
Overview
• Case law last 12 months ish• Family Procedure Rules
CHAMBERS
3
International element
• News report 5 September 2011• French court orders H to pay W €10,000• Damages for ‘not enough sex’• Breach of Art 215 of Code Civile
CHAMBERS
4
International element
• English court’s view? …
CHAMBERS
5
International element
• ‘Once a week is enough’• Mason (1980) CA
CHAMBERS
6
Radmacher
• No presumptions, but• Uphold agreement unless …• … And it’s just one of the factors
CHAMBERS
7
Bankruptcy & order for sale
• Standard order for sale• When do beneficial interests alter?• When order made/ decree absolute?• Completion of sale?• Warwick v Yarwood says latter
CHAMBERS
8
Bankruptcy & order for sale
• So, if bankruptcy imminent or feared• Redraft order for sale (2.4)
CHAMBERS
9
Annulment of bankruptcy
• Do it, if at all, early• Make provision for trustee’s expenses• Mekarska: no annulment otherwise• Should bankruptcy court adjourn if there
are pending divorce proceedings?
CHAMBERS
10
Imerman
• Not all doom & gloom• Documents may not be confidential• ‘Secret plan to hide assets’• Documents clearly show, post form E,
there has been non-disclosure
CHAMBERS
11
Cohabitation
• Periodical payments order in force• Effect of payee’s cohabitation• Just goes to quantum• Not to be equated with re-marriage• What ought partner to contribute to reduce
payee’s income needs
CHAMBERS
12
Cohabitation
• K v K Coleridge J• Why not equate with re-marriage?
CHAMBERS
13
Cohabitation
• This is ‘heresy’• So says Court of Appeal in Grey
CHAMBERS
14
Cohabitation
• Why is pre-marital cohabitation different?• See 4.2.3• Outcome at 4.2.6
CHAMBERS
15
Appeals
• Kaur v Matharu (pre-FPR)• Children appeals more lenient re fresh
evidence• ‘May be’ so in ancillary relief• Probably survives FPR 2010 (5.1.2)
CHAMBERS
16
Appeals
• Need permission• 21 days• Consider need for updating evidence• If appeal allowed, J to exercise discretion
afresh or send back down?
CHAMBERS
17
Barder appeals: Richardson
• Wife’s death not a Barder event• Her award not based on needs• ‘Earned her share’
CHAMBERS
18
Richardson
• Impact of damages claim against business• Lack of full cover a mutual mistake• Entitling H to set aside?• No, it was a ‘known unknown’ (5.4.5)
CHAMBERS
19
Richardson
• But insurers refusing any liability• This was ‘unknown unknown’• H did not know they would refuse and had
no way of finding out
CHAMBERS
20
Post FPR set aside
• PD says must appeal• But set aside still possible• See FPR r 4.1(6) (5.5.2)
CHAMBERS
21
Joinder/ intervention
• Join 3P• Mini ToLATA claim within the financial
order proceedings (6.1)• Or … (6.2)
CHAMBERS
22
Joinder/ intervention
• Don’t just invite 3P to intervene (6.3)• If they don’t, will be no issue estoppel
CHAMBERS
23
Joinder/ intervention
• How to join?• Goldstone says there is power to join• Even though there is no specific power in
the rules
CHAMBERS
24
The new inspection appointments
• Order for disclosure against non-party under FPR 21.2
• Or seek permission to issue witness summons
• Don’t forget Bankers Book Evidence Act
CHAMBERS
25
Non-matrimonial property
• Jones approach:• Work out the current value of the pre-
acquired asset• Deduct that from total assets• Divide result by two• Cross check result as % of overall
CHAMBERS
26
Non-matrimonial property: Jones
• Keep needs and sharing separate• Compare results (7.1.2)
CHAMBERS
27
Non-matrimonial property
• H’s co worth £2m at time of marriage• CA say this now worth £9m• So matrimonial property is £25m less £9m• W gets 50% of £16m, ie £8m
CHAMBERS
28
Non-matrimonial property
• How did H’s £2m co in 1996 …• … become £9m in 2006?• Springboard• Plus passive economic growth• NB cross-check on % of overall
CHAMBERS
29
Building blocks?
• Pleadings?• Issues• Findings• Evidence
CHAMBERS
30
Pre-acquired assets: N v F
• Same approach• But needs left W with 44% of overall• NB ‘add backs’ at 7.2.2• Evidence of earning capacity (7.2.3)
CHAMBERS
31
Pre-acquired assets: Robson
• Assets all pre-acquired inheritance• Needs based claim• W aware living on mismanaged
inheritance• Could not base future income needs on
excessive marital standard of living
CHAMBERS
32
Pre-acquired assets: Robson
• NB no interest can run pre-dA (7.3.5)• Timing of payment of lump sum• Where coming from proceeds of sale• Guidance at 7.3.7• Art not science!
CHAMBERS
33
Pre-acquired assets: K v L
• W shares worth £680k on marriage• Now, pre-tax £58m• Family lived off (not all of) dividends• W offered £5m• Bodey J ordered just that
CHAMBERS
34
Pre-acquired assets: K v L
• No sharing• Just needs, generously interpreted• H’s appeal to CA dismissed (7.4.4)
CHAMBERS
35
Pre-acquired assets: Whaley
• No classification into ‘dynastic’• & ‘settlor-beneficiary’ trusts• Test still whether trustees likely to advance
capital• W not confined to needs but small
‘sharing’ element on top
CHAMBERS
36
Pre-acquired assets: Mansfield
• Personal injury damages not immune from financial orders
• But court has to reflect reason why they were awarded in first place
• Mesher here once children grown up and H’s needs would increase
CHAMBERS
37
Post-separation assets
• SK v WL: no need for clear boundary between matrimonial/ non-matrimonial property
• W got 40% overall• Big increase in assets over 3y separation
CHAMBERS
38
Schedule 1 lump sums
• Just for capital needs?• Could not be used to obtain capitalised
child maintenance (ie in advance)• Or to clear income-related debts (ie in
arrears)• Until …
CHAMBERS
39
Schedule 1 lump sums
• DE v AB Baron J• M sought housing fund• Plus lump sum partly to clear debts• DJ found CSA assessed F’s income too
low
CHAMBERS
40
Schedule 1 lump sums
• On F’s appeal• Lump sum broad brush• Lump sum could cover debts incurred for
eg mortgage payments as for ‘benefit of child’
• Revenue costs could go into lump sum as CSA in error
CHAMBERS
41
Schedule 1 lump sums
• CSA appeal?• CSA variation?
CHAMBERS
42
Schedule 1 settlements
• Enforcement difficulties• Transfer and charge back ok
CHAMBERS
43
Schedule 1 lump sumsfor legal fees
• CF v KM says yes to interim lump sum under Schedule 1
• Even if no power to order pp’s• R v F Bodey J – just for s 8 proceedings• NB cl 45 LASPO (8.6.2-3)
CHAMBERS
44
Future income disparity
• Acknowledged clean break case• One party has better income• Adjust capital to reflect income
differential?• Murphy says yes
CHAMBERS
45
Future income disparity: Murphy
• See 9.1.2• 8 year childless marriage• £3m to go wrong• All hallmarks of clean break & equality
CHAMBERS
46
Future income disparity: Murphy
• No 65:35 split• Price of a clean break• H v high earning capacity• Unused for c 4 years before trial• ? And illiquid assets too?
CHAMBERS
47
Variation of lump sum orders
• Is order at 10.1 an order for lump sums?• Or a single lump sum payable by
instalments• If latter, court can vary it under s 31
(10.3.1)• H v H says it is latter no matter how
drafted (10.3.3)
CHAMBERS