Dharamshi v Dharamshi2000

H, a wealthy husband appealed against an order requiring him to transfer to W, his former wife upon the dissolution of their marriage a lump sum of GBP 1.5 million together with the matrimonial home, and a motor car. H contended that although W had helped to build up the family business, the sale of which had benefited him in the sum of GBP 4.5 million, the lump sum payable to W ought to have been quantified in accordance with the conventional Duxbury tables and ought to have reflected capitalisation of W's income requirements. Finding that W's contribution to the home, family and the business had been considerable throughout the duration of the marriage, the court held that the lump sum had been intended to give her a substantial fraction of the proceeds of sale not directly related to her reasonable requirements, following the decision in White (Pamela) v White (Martin) [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1571.

Abstract: A husband, H, appealed against an order in ancillary relief proceedings which obliged him to transfer the former matrimonial home to the wife, W, to pay her a lump sum of GBP 1.05 million plus 25 per cent of the proceeds of a tax avoidance scheme, and to make periodical payments of GBP 5,000 per year for the benefit of two children of the marriage. In 1972 H had come to the UK from Uganda as a young man and had set up a business which proved to be very successful. He married W in 1985 and she left her job to help in the business. The relationship broke down in 1996 and the marriage was dissolved in 1998. H argued that the judge had erred in failing to adopt the conventional approach of calculating W's reasonable needs on the basis of the Duxbury tables.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that in accordance with the dicta in White (Pamela) v White (Martin) [1999] Fam. 304, calculation of a wife's reasonable income requirements was no longer the basis for calculating the award but merely one of several factors. In the instant case, as there were more assets than were required for the parties' basic needs, the correct test was to aim for equality without regard to gender, and W's contribution as homemaker had to be ranked as highly as her contribution to the business. On that basis the judge's approach, whereby he had sought to give W a substantial proportion of the proceeds of sale of H's company, had been fully justified, White applied.
...continue reading "part 3"

Family law negotiation

Relevant date 2010 – as SEPERATED seeking divorce.This post is sponsored by abogados de accidentes

Tim bought flat which was inherited BEFORE he met TINA, however he sold the flat and used £80,000 to pay a deposit on home which was £240,000 in 2007 & they moved in before Xmas 2007

In Mitchell v Mitchell 1995 – Inner house of Court of Session held that a house bought before marriage is treated as matrimonial property only if acquired with attention to marry for both parties.

Lord McLean observed that

“ any property acquired by parties during the marriage but before separation is matrimonial property even if purchased with funds which one of the parties acquired by way of gift or succession The funds themselves before their application in acquiring the property, would not under S10 be matrimonial property”

So Tim inherited the money and bought a flat. £80 K deposit

However, as he used money with intention to buy family home – it is now matrimonial property….

He financed whole thing she did some DIY work herself maintaining it.

[Welsh v Welsh 1993]

She gave up job to look after kids, awarded equal share ….

She moved out

Only have state pension

The basic state pension cannot be shared. The court cannot make a pension lump sum order under S12A of 1985 act

Furnishings divided by 2

Dible v Dible 1997 ?

Settlement for defamation we keep it all as after relevant date

...continue reading "Family law negotiations"