Jones v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Nicholas Wall,Lord Justice Thorpe,Lady Justice Black |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 890 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2010/0623 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 24 June 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 890
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Charles
Before: The President of the Family Division
(Sir Nicholas Wall)
Lord Justice Thorpe
and
Lady Justice Black
Case No: B4/2010/0623
Mr M Pointer QC & Mr G Kingscote (instructed by Mischon Re Reya) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Ms L Stone QC (instructed by Levison Eitzer Pigott) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Sir Nicholas Wall:
This is an application for permission to appeal an order made by Charles J in ancillary relief proceedings which finally saw the light of day in March 2010, although it appears from the judgment that he heard the case in June and July 2009. The application was put into the list by my Lord inter partes and we have had the advantage of hearing both Mr Martin Pointer QC and Ms Lucy Stone QC advocating their respective positions. It is a judgment, if I may say so, of extraordinary length, running some 484 paragraphs, in a case which the parties acknowledge can be reduced to one sheet of paper and which is not particularly difficult.
Nonetheless, four grounds of appeal are raised by the wife. First of all, it is said that in assessing the award for the appellant the judge computed a figure based on sharing of £5.8 million, including costs, and a figure based on need of £5.4 million. He then awarded the latter; the argument is that it was wrong in principle to take the lower of the two figures in compliance with the hearing guidance which is given in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal. Ground 2, it is said that in respect of the respondent's company the judge's attribution of 60% of the value at the time of its disposal to the husband's pre-married endeavour was arbitrary and at odds with the evidence, particularly with the evidence of the accountants that at the time of the marriage it was worth £3.2 million; and in conflict with other conclusions of the judge where he rejected the adoption of arbitrary percentages. Thirdly, it is argued that the judge was wrong to state the marriage represented but one-third of the life of the business when on the evidence it equated to half; and, fourthly, an award of about 22% of the assets of the marriage after a marriage of ten years and when the bulk of the wealth created during the marriage was far too low.
In my judgment ground 1 is not really arguable. The difference between £5.8 million and £5.4 million in the context of the assets in this case is marginal, and were that the sole ground of appeal it would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N v F
...H v H[2008] EWHC 935 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 2092. Haldane v Haldane [1977] AC 673, [1976] 3 WLR 760, PC. Jones v Jones[2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] 1 FCR 242, [2011] 3 WLR 582, [2011] 1 FLR 1723. LKW v DD (FACV 16/2008), HK CFA. M v M (Prenuptial Agreement) [2002] 1 FLR 654. Mallett v Mallett (19......
-
XW v XH (no 1)
...EWCA Civ 1306, [2018] Fam 93, [2017] 3 FCR 343, [2018] 2 WLR 509, [2018] 1 FLR 1283. Jones v Jones[2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1, [2011] 1 FCR 242, [2011] 3 WLR 582, [2011] 1 FLR 1723. Kremen v Agrest (no 11) (financial remedy: non-disclosure: post-nuptial agreement)[2012] EWHC 45 (Fam), ......
-
WM v HM
...EWHC 834 (Fam), [2015] Fam Law 1045. Ilott v The Blue Cross & Ors[2017] UKSC 17, [2017] 2 WLR 979. Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] 1 FCR 242, [2012] Fam 1, [2011] 3 WLR 582, [2011] 1 FLR 1723. Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 FCR 213, [2006] 3 All ER ......
-
Camilla Eva Carin Versteegh v Gerard Mikael Versteegh
...3 FCR 343, [2018] Fam 93, [2018] 2 WLR 509. JL v SL (no 2)[2015] EWHC 360 (Fam), [2015] 2 FLR 1202. Jones v Jones[2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2011] 1 FCR 242, [2012] Fam 1, [2011] 3 WLR 582, [2011] 1 FLR 1723. Kremen v Agrest (no 11)[2012] EWHC 45 (Fam), [2012] 2 FCR 472, [2012] 2 FLR 414. Miller v......