Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What does the matrimonial causes act 1973 state? |
The court is to have regard to all circumstances of the case. The welfare of the parties minor children is to be it's first consideration. the court must consider whether it is possible to make a 'clean break' |
|
|
Is there wide discretion? |
Yes the act gives the court wide discretion to make orders for sharing, selling or settling property and for the payment of maintenance both for the adults and for any children. |
|
|
What does s 25(1) matrimonial causes act 1973 state? |
Makes special consideration to the child under 18 and the first consideration must be given to that |
|
|
In England is gifted, inherited and premarital property in the all in marital property? |
Yes |
|
|
What was held in Piglowska v Piglowska? |
The judges are keeping a lot of discretion of how they use the factors of the act in s 25 |
|
|
What was held in Suter v Suter? |
Court made it clear that where there are other factors the court only needs to give its first consideration to the welfare of the child and bear in mind the child when dealing with other factors |
|
|
What was held in B v B? |
Mother of child not going to earn a lot of money, house transferred over to wife as child's needs come first, noted husband had good job and could earn enough capital to buy himself house and he had substantial pension fund which wasn't touched |
|
|
What is the starting point for financial resources? |
Look at all the property to decide how to meet the needs of the parties |
|
|
What was held in Petrodel Resources ltd v Prest and ors? |
Wife sought an award of certain properties held by company operated & controlled by husband, q was could the court pierce the corporate veil and award some properties to wife? Gave consideration to 3 things. 1. Is it a situation where they can pierce corporate veil 2. Can we do this because it is a property adjustment order not withstanding the fact these were in legal ownership of the company 3. The company was holding these properties on trust for the husband. Court accepted the 3rd point but not first two so she was successful on 3rd point so they forced the company to transfer some of the properties to her |
|
|
What was held in Wyatt v Vince? |
Took a claim against him for financial provision, after divorce he set up company and made a lot of money, court held that she brought up the son in real hardship so her claim was legally recognisable and it isn't just to assets during the marriage, couldn't happen in Scotland due to relevant date |
|
|
What was held in White v White? |
Court held that where there is inherited property it represents a contribution made to the welfare of the family by one of the members of the marriage, judge should take into account the nature and value of property and circumstances it's been acquired |
|
|
What was held in B v B? |
Both been living off wives inheritance, set up car wash business that husband ran, husband paid rent for business to wife, court held that fairness would be done so husband allowed to stay on property paying rent until he sold the business and then property 50/50 |
|
|
What do the court do when it comes to age and duration of marriage? |
The length of time is a key factor when the courts come to exercise their discretion, in a short marriage the court might be more likely to exclude inherited assets or assets accused before marriage. |
|
|
What was held in Miller v Miller? |
During marriage husbands wealth increased substantially, he said it was due to his work and talents. Wife awarded 5 million pounds court said wife couldn't have this standard of living alone |
|
|
What was held in C v C? |
Car crash he received 5 million in damages and top up each year, wife wanted some but court said no the husband needs this money so ring fenced it for him |
|
|
What was held in Sorrell v Sorrell? |
He had exceptional business talent so he got 60% of assets, away from 50/50 split due to special contribution |
|
|
In England is there a discrimination between the money earner and the home maker? |
No, it will be a 50/50 split unless there is a special contribution like talents |
|
|
What was held in Evans v Evans? |
Conduct will only be considered where "obvious and gross" she tried to take a hit on her husband so he didn't have to keep paying her |
|
|
What was the change in reasonable standard of living? |
Used to be that no financial adjustment was made so wealth stood with one party as the other was only given enough for a reasonable standard of living but now they don't discriminate between husband and wife roles and shouldn't advantage one party |
|
|
What are the factors that justify a departure from equal share? |
1. Special contribution 2. Non-matrimonial property 3. Compensation |
|
|
What does special contribution mean? |
It must be exceptional circumstances to justify departure from equal division on grounds of special contribution |
|
|
What should the judge do when looking at property acquired due to succession or acquired before marriage? |
He should look at how important it is to this case, the nature and value of property, the time and circumstances the property was acquired |
|
|
What was held in Robson v Robson? |
Inherited wealth the wife was ordered 8 mill of 22 mil pounds |
|
|
What was held in Miller v McFarlane? |
Had a claim for compensation if you could show that at beginning of marriage the wife had very good earning record and no reason to doubt career would've been good hadn't she given up work for children |
|
|
What are the principles of sharing in England? |
1. The breadwinner shouldn't be valued more than the domestic contributions |
|
|
What was held in M v B? |
Mother had care of children, make sure children could stay in house and it didn't leave anything for husband to take from marriage, primary carer often gets the home. |
|
|
What was held in wright v wright? |
Payment in place after divorce, it's for a limited period only |
|
|
What was held in Radmacher v Radmacher? |
Prenuptial agreements will be upheld providing they are freely entered into by parties and it is fair to hold them to this agreement |
