W v W (Financial Provision)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1996 |
| Date | 1996 |
| Court | Family Division |
EWBANK, J
Financial provision – division of family assets on divorce – factors to be taken into account.
The husband was aged 87 and the wife 78. The husband was married to his first wife in the 1920s. He left his wife and began living with the second wife in 1932. He was unable to obtain a divorce from his first wife until the law was changed in 1971. He then married his second wife. In 1955 the husband acquired control of an investment company. He had a 54 per cent interest in that company. He set up a trust company to control his interest in the investment company. The distribution of the shares of the trust company varied but at the time of the hearing the husband had 75 per cent of the shareholding and the wife 25 per cent. Although the wife had made a full contribution to the welfare of the family she had not directly contributed to the build up of the family assets.
From 1958 the family home was a large mansion which had 17 rooms and was set in four acres of land. The house was bought and owned by the trust company. At the time of the hearing it was valued at £675,000.
The marriage broke down and in 1991 the husband left home and went to live in a flat. This was purchased by the trust company for £285,000.
The parties were divorced.
The total value of the trust company was £4.3m. The husband's share was worth £3.3m and the wife's share £1m. The husband had cash on deposit of £315,000 and the wife had £100,000. The chattels in the house and flat had an insurance value of £600,000. The wife had no income. The husband had an income of over £100,000 a year from the companies.
In her application for ancillary relief the wife sought an equal division of the matrimonial assets. She submitted that the court should make an order which would enable her to stay in the former matrimonial home with sufficient money to run the house properly.
Held – In arriving at a decision as to the appropriate order the court had to take account of s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Taking into account all the matters referred to in that provision it could not be said that the proper starting point in the present case was a half and a half-share between the parties. The court had to consider what were the reasonable requirements of the wife and contrast that with the needs of the husband and all the other matters set out in the statute. In making an order in accordance with s 25 of the 1973 Act and not trying to redistribute capital in any equal or other share, the reasonable requirements of the wife included a house she should be able to buy for £400,000, a half-share in the furniture, and a lump sum. The wife was to transfer her shares in the company to the husband and he was to provide her with a lump sum of £1.1m. If
the wife wished to stay in the former matrimonial home it would be an option available to her at the price of a £675,000 reduction in the lump sum.
Statutory provisions referred to:Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25.
Cases referred to in judgment:Page v Page (1981) 2 FLR 198.
Preston v Preston [1982] Fam 17; [1981] 3 WLR 619; [1982] 1 All ER 41.
R v R (Financial Provision: Reasonable Needs) (1988) [1994] 2 FLR 1044.
Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72; [1973] 2 WLR 366; [1973] 1 All ER 829.
Martin Pointer for the wife.
Paul Coleridge, QC for the husband.
MR JUSTICE EWBANK.The husband and wife in this case were judicially separated at the beginning of this week and now I have before me an application by the wife for financial relief and property adjustment and cross-applications by the husband in relation to property adjustment.
The husband is now 87 years old and the wife is 78. They are now living apart and have been living apart since an order made by Eastham, J on 31 January 1991. The husband was married in the 1920s and has three children by that marriage, two daughters who are aged 62 and 60 and a son aged 58. One of the daughters has a daughter herself and that daughter has two daughters. So he has one grandchild and two great grandchildren from this marriage. He left his wife in about 1932 and started living with Mrs W, the wife in this case. They lived in adultery from 1932 onwards. She bore a child, L, who was born in 1939. They have continued to live together since 1932 until 1991. They were not married in the early years because the husband's wife would not give him a divorce and the divorce laws at that time gave him no opportunity to obtain a divorce himself. In 1971, however, the husband was able to divorce his wife on the grounds of five years' separation, and he married Mrs W, his second wife.
I have heard some of the history from 1932 to the 1950s but nothing, as far as I can see, really turns on that period. In 1955 the husband acquired control of the investment company which has been called TIC. At the same time he acquired control of or set up the New Centurion Trust which controlled his interest in the investment company. He had a 54 per cent interest in that company, held by the New Centurion Trust. I have seen the records of the shareholding of the New Centurion Trust. This indicates that the husband and wife had equal shares for the first few years and then the wife's shares were transferred to the husband in 1983. In 1987, the shares went to nominees. The husband and wife again had equal shares in 1973 but in 1980 the shareholding was changed and the husband then took 75 per cent shareholding and the wife had 25 per cent. That is the position today. The husband has been running the New Centurion Trust and the TIC. They are investment companies and have been successful.
In 1958 the husband and wife went to live at a house in Dorking. This was
bought and owned by NCT and is still owned by NCT In 1971 or 1972 a flat in Antibes was bought. The husband put up the money for it but it was put in L's name and there is now a dispute about the ownership. The husband claims that there was an agreement between him and L that L would hold the flat in trust for him or, alternatively, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A v A (Duxbury calculations)
...FCR 791; sub nom Smith v Smith (Smith intervening) [1992] Fam 69, [1991] 2 All ER 306, [1991] 3 WLR 646, CA. W v W (financial provision) [1996] 3 FCR 641. White v White[1998] 3 FCR 45, AppealThe wife appealed from a decision of Deputy District Judge Nathan ordering her to pay to the husband......
-
Burgess v Burgess
...to:Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, ss 23 to 25A. Cases referred to in judgment:Page v Page (1981) 2 FLR 198. W v W (Financial Provision)[1996] 3 FCR 641. Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72; [1973] 2 WLR 366; [1973] 1 All ER Michael Horowitz, QC for the husband. Philip Moor for the wife. LORD JUST......