CoA delivers shock verdict in big-money divorce case

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • 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

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

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Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down.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)