Farrer & Co Withers CoA delivers shock verdict in big-money divorce case By Katy Dowell 26 October 2012 14:20 17 December 2015 12:09 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer John Smith 26 October 2012 at 14:33 A win for MANkind Reply Link Anonymous 26 October 2012 at 15:13 This is a ridiculous judgment and one which highlights again the need to have more women in the higher civil courts. Effectively the judges have applied commercial law to a private client case, I understand that has to be universal but this clearly goes against the spirit of the family law. I hope the Supreme Court agrees and throws out the appeal – and quickly. Reply Link Interested Observer 26 October 2012 at 16:40 We don’t need more women in the Court of Appeal – we need more good lawyers. Until the Supreme Court rules, the advice to husbands must be “stash the assets in a company.” Reply Link Anon 26 October 2012 at 23:18 @3.13. Why is this a ridiculous judgment? The wife was divorcing the husband, not the companies. Otherwise, where would you draw the line? if a limited company goes bust, on your logic the directors/shareholders (whichever or both) would be liable for the company’s debts. Novel!! Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2012 at 02:39 Good! Another gold digger loses out to common sense. I love it. I realise that lawyers and Thorp and other PC maniacs around the country, plus every man hating feminist in the land will be dissapointed, but that is just another reason to love it. Reply Link David Sheard 28 October 2012 at 09:16 …..and as usual – coining it in ….the legal Cabal. Reply Link Anonymous 29 October 2012 at 15:37 as a man about to go though a divorce I welcome this judgment. I just wish I had some wealth to hide… Reply Link Anonymous 31 October 2012 at 14:19 ‘We don’t need more women in the Court of Appeal – we need more good lawyers. Until the Supreme Court rules, the advice to husbands must be “stash the assets in a company.”‘ ??? Nothing in this judgment says ‘stash the assets in a company and you’re OK.’ You haven’t understood the point. BTW, there is no prospect whatsoever of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment. Reply Link Anonymous 2 November 2012 at 12:21 “Stashing the assets in a company” specifically to escape a division of assets on divorce would surely provide sufficient evidence of iniquity to justify piercing the corporate veil on standard company law principles – the company would be being used as an instrument of fraud. That was not the case here, however. The companies pre-dated the divorce and were used by both parties for purposes other than hiding assets from divorce proceedings. There is no justification for pursuing the companies (which are of course separate from their shareholder) here. If the husband fails to pay up, the wife could presumably seek a transfer into her name of the shares in the companies, as part of a seizure of the husband’s own assets? That way she would obtain the property in the companies through the more legally appropriate route? Reply Link Anonymous 4 November 2012 at 20:55 Anonymous – 31-October-2012 2:19 pm WHY do you think there is “no prospect whatsoever of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment?” Reply Link Anonymous 13 November 2012 at 11:19 The only possible way the Supreme Court will overrule this is if it decides that the company was a nominee, or sham, or something similar (and the High Court judgment is hopelessly vague on the point). Absent some sort of nominee relationship or sham etc, there isn’t even the faintest hope of the CA being overruled. Any competent law student doing company law could give you the reason: the legislation provides that she can only get what the husband is ‘entitled’ to, and he is only ‘entitled’ to the shares in the company, not the company’s assets. Reply Link Anonymous 6 March 2013 at 12:47 This ruling was music to my ears. As someone going through a painful divorce, I own companies that own assets. Its been crazy that there has been one law in Family Court and another for everyone else. These greedy gold-digging women are finally getting back to the real world with this ruling. The way forward in future will simply be that during a marriage, if properties are bought under a company name, it will be up to the spouse to ensure she has shares in the company, or sign an agreement with the husband about how to deal with that particular asset in the event of a divorce. Or something similar to this I think. But this ruling is excellent news for people like me. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.