Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
11 April 2011
London – Still the Divorce Capital of the World?
The Court of Appeal have upheld an award of £2.8 million to a 27 year old wife after a two year marriage. Both parties are Russian and lived in a £4 million property in Kensington. The husband is 26 and the parties have a two year old daughter. The husband contested the lower Court’s decision on the basis it was disproportionate to the length of the marriage, the majority of his wealth emanated from his parents and the English Courts had no jurisdiction.
8 February 2011
What's mine is yours...depending on what it is and when I got it.
In the recent case of JvJ, the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the treatment of non matrimonial assets, which in this case was a company that the Husband had acquired and operated for 10 years before the marriage. The Wife accepted that she should have a lower than 50% share of the total assets and the Husband accepted the Wife should have an equal share of the matrimonial assets.
13 December 2010
The European marriage contract - a different animal to the pre-nup?
I have read with interest the commentary on a highly contested divorce currently proceeding in New York, the divorce of Olivier Sarkozy (the half brother of Nicolas Sarkozy) and his wife Charlotte. According to the press reports (even reported in the English press - eg see Telegraph of 5 December) Mrs Sarkozy is trying to overturn the terms of a French 'pre-nup' the parties had entered into when they married in the 1990's. Olivier apparently had been 'summoned' by his future father in law to sign the contract to protect Charlotte's family trusts. Since then Olivier's career and financial position had gone from strength to strength and, by the time of the parties' separation, the terms of the agreement no longer suited Charlotte and to the contrary were very much in her husband's interests .
10 November 2010
A Matter of Trust
It has been reported this weekend that the wife of a City trader is seeking a share of the £7.5 million which he transferred to Lichtenstein companies during the course of the marriage. Mr Goldstone and the companies maintain that the assets were legitimately transferred. Mrs Goldstone meanwhile alleges that, far from having transferred ownership in these assets, her husband still retains control of and a beneficial interest in them and she is therefore entitled to a share of those funds as part of her financial claim upon divorce.
5 November 2010
You have to use the blame game to get a “quickie” divorce
It is a common misconception that parties can obtain a divorce in this country based on their ‘irreconcilable differences’. Would such a ground be welcome?