Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2013] EWHC 3627

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

Beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application to contested financial remedy proceedings. The court had made an order that these beneficiaries should disclose copies of documents provided to them for the purposes of an application that had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey (RCtJ) by the trustee of some of those trusts. The RCtJ had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure if they were ordered to do so but expressed concerns about and invited the court not to require such disclosure [2012] (2) JLR 51.

Th...

Trusts And Divorce: Piercing the corporate veil

Prest shows that family judges must uphold company law when considering what constitutes the matrimonial pot, as James Copson discusses Where Family Division judges have fallen into error time and again has been their reliance on what Cumming-Bruce LJ referred to as ‘abundant authority’ in Nicholas that the veil can be lifted if there are …
This post is only available to members.

Inherited Assets: Balancing point

Eleanor Aguirre considers how needs will impact on inherited assets The former matrimonial home, even if brought into the marriage by one party, usually has a central place and should normally be treated as matrimonial property. The recent High Court judgment in Y v Y [2012] provides a useful reminder of the approach the courts …
This post is only available to members.

Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2012 #121

Mrs Barbara Lilleyman applied for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband Mr Roy Lilleyman pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act). Nigel and Christopher Lilleyman, who were Mr Lilleyman’s sons from a previous marriage, were the executors of Mr Lilleyman’s estate under his will dated 20 May 2008. Nigel and Christopher Littleman were the principal beneficiaries of Mr Lilleyman’s estate and were the defendants to Mrs Lilleyman’s application.

Mr and Mrs Lilleyman had each been married previously and each had two...

International Focus: Close comparison

In the conclusion to a two-part analysis Hannah Minty and Sally Nash compare the differences in practice between financial provision in England and Wales and in Scotland ‘In Scotland, inherited assets are specifically excluded from the definition of matrimonial property, and therefore are not taken into account in determining entitlement to financial provision.’ Part one …
This post is only available to members.

AR v AR [2011] EWHC 2717 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2012 #118

The parties separated after a relationship of approximately 25 years and the wife commenced divorce proceedings (decree nisi being pronounced in October 2010). They had one child who was aged 18 (the husband had three children by his first marriage). The husband was aged 66 and the wife 54.

The total wealth was in the region of £21-£24m (all but approximately £1m was in the husband’s name). The source of the husband’s wealth was a business that his father bought shortly after the second world war, which floated in the 1950s and sold in the late 1980s. From his father, the husband ...

BJ v MJ [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2012 #118

The husband (H) and the wife (W) were both 65, having married in 1980. There was one child of the marriage (C), aged 25. The former matrimonial home was Green Farm, a substantial property set in 72 acres in Kent. Trust assets fell to be divided following divorce.

In order to mitigate tax on the floatation of his company (ABC), two Jersey trusts were created by H in 1994 (No. 1 Trust and No. 2 Trust) and a company incorporated in the British Virgin Island called Giloch Investments Ltd (Giloch). No. 1 Trust was a discrertionary trust for a class of beneficiaries comprising H, W, C, ...

Financial Provision: Fair shares

In the conclusion to a two-part analysis Huw Miles looks at the courts’ approach to compensation ‘The court must take care not to create a set of rigid stepping stones or apply a formulaic approach that is not set out in the statute.’ Part one: ‘Love, honour and compensate’ In this article we will consider …
This post is only available to members.

K v L [2012] WTLR 153

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2012 #116

On H’s ancillary relief claim, Bodey J awarded him a sum of £5m pursuant to an open offer made by W. W had assets worth approximately £57m and H had assets of approximately £300,000, represented by the former matrimonial home which was transferred to him by W in the course of the divorce. The couple began cohabiting in Israel in 1986, and underwent a ceremony of marriage that was not valid under Israeli law. They married legally in England in 1991, where they have lived ever since. The length of the relationship was 21 years and there are children from the marriage. Substantially the who...