Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Cuniff v Cuniff 1999
|
Married for 27 years and wife got everything. She had nothing and virtually unemployable. He had high paying job and had gained additional qualifications during marriage. Resources includes potential income and earning capacity.
|
Available order/ financial hardship
|
|
|
Skarpass v Skarpass 1991
|
Took account of defender's alcohol consumption in considering division of matrimonial property. Wife gave up capital investment in ongoing business at time of marriage to look after injured husband. This constituted an economic disadvantage.
|
Conduct /economic advantages and disadvantages
|
|
|
Jacques v Jacques 1997
|
If special cirumstances from s.10 exist this does not an unfair division. Up to court to decide.
|
Fair sharing / s.10
|
|
|
Petrie v Petrie 1988
|
Husband suffered injury before marriage, awarded damages during and paid after relevant date. Helf that was referable to injury and should be excluded.
|
Fair sharing
|
|
|
Davidson v Davidson 1994
|
Wife inherited large sum of money and bought a farm with it. Held that because inheritance usually excluded from matrimonial property this justified departing from equal division of farm.
|
Fair sharing
|
|
|
Banks v Banks 2005
|
Husband worked overseas a lot. Claimed relevant date was January 1996 as almost no direct contact after this. Wife claimed it was July or August 2001 when he had last visited matrimonial home. Court held it was May 1998 when he had last stayed overnight and changed his bank account.
|
Relevant Date
|
|
|
Morrison v Morrison 1998
|
Wife looking after 2 children and was awarded capital sum of 2/3 of value of former matrimonial home and its contents.
|
Economic burden of caring for child
|
|
|
McKenzie v McKenzie 1995
|
Periodical allowance without time limit.
|
Serious financial hardship
|
|
|
Haughan v Haughan 1995
|
Loss of aliment on divorce would lead to hardship. Monthly payments with no time limit. Reduced when husband's financial circumstances changed.
|
Serious financial hardship
|
