CoA delivers shock verdict in big-money divorce case

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • A win for MANkind

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @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!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • .....and as usual - coining it in ....the legal Cabal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • as a man about to go though a divorce I welcome this judgment. I just wish I had some wealth to hide...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • '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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "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?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous - 31-October-2012 2:19 pm
    WHY do you think there is "no prospect whatsoever of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment?"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (12)