Sun11192017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS: A one-sided argument

10 November 2017  

Beth Mason and Georgia Day examine a case involving a large amount of assets, but also issues relevant to cases concerned with lesser sums

The decision in AAZ v BBZ [2016] caused a stir in large part due to the level of award granted to the wife. A settlement of £453m is, by any standards, a very high-net-worth case. However the size of the award is, of course, governed largely by the amount of the parties’ assets, and what is of greater interest to family practitioners is the analysis by Haddon-Cave J and the issues arising after the final hearing. The case was heard in December 2016, but the judgments were published several months later.

 

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    AAZ v BBZ & ors [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam); [2016] EWHC 3349 (Fam); [2016] EWHC 3361 (Fam)

    Balabel v Air India [1988] 1 Ch 317

    Barclays Bank plc & ors v Eustice & ors [1995] EWCA Civ 29

    Three Rivers District Council & ors v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2004] UKHL 48

    USA v Philip Morris Inc & ors [2004] EWCA Civ 330

    Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607

    Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270

Last modified on 10 November 2017