You are here

Top Ten Myths in International Family Law

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about international family law issues. Here is our top 10:

Specialisation and the Financial Remedy Court with a Proposed New Form A

In his latest view from the President’s Chambers Sir James Munby sets out his plans, following consultation, for specialised regional Financial Remedy Courts and for a proposed new Form A.

A matter of trust: Should trust assets be considered in divorce cases in England & Wales?

Divorce often brings out the defensive instinct. "It's mine, hands off!" is a common retort amongst parting spouses.

For the most part, it will be obvious that a particular asset belongs to one of the spouses: for example, the family home (in either party's or in joint names) will invariably form part of the family assets which a court may then be asked to divide between the parties.

But in the less public world of trust law, whether the monies held in a trust "belong" to a spouse can be the subject of fierce debate. Divorcing parties may hold entirely different views about how to treat trust funds: one party saying that the trust monies should be poured into the matrimonial pot for division, the other saying that the trust as a separate entity should remain untouched.

Many trusts contain considerable sums of money and so the way in which they are treated by the family courts and divorcing parties can significantly impact the level of resources potentially deemed available for division upon divorce.

The husband, his wife and his sex worker: sharing the marital pot

In the context of the present discussion about reform of cohabitation law, a case decided by the Australian Court of Appeal provides a salutary lesson of problems which can arise.

I spy a rare white leopard – sharing non-matrimonial assets on divorce

Inspired by a recent Halloween costume party where my colleague Emma Nash and I dressed as that rarest of things, a white leopard, I present here a short guide to how English law treats what is known as “non-matrimonial property” on divorce.

What financial resources need to be disclosed in an English divorce settlement?

A final financial settlement in the family courts in England and Wales can only reliably occur when there has been disclosure to both sides of the financial resources of each.  But what does financial resources mean?  In particular what does it mean for international families and those with complex financial circumstances?

Associate Emma Nash invited to speak at Autumn Family Law Seminar

The International Family Law Group LLP’s Associate Emma Nash will be speaking on Thursday 26th October at St Andrew’s Hill Autumn Family Law Seminar.

Child Support Symposium, Heidelberg June 2017

iFLG Partner, Lucy Greenwood, has been involved in promoting the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on The International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and The Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. Lucy first spoke about this topic at The Hague Convention Conference in Hong Kong in 2015.  Following her presentation at that conference, she and others at IFLG have maintained links with various international experts who advise on child support and The Hague Conference (HCCH).

Court of Appeal Decision in Chinese Tiger Trust Case

The Court of Appeal has made a ruling on the case of Quan v Bray and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 405. The case involved a dispute over a trust, known as the Chinese Tigers South African Trust, which had been set up in 2002 by a husband and wife to help repopulate Chinese Tigers to the wild. The couple subsequently separated and the wife issued a claim for a financial remedy in divorce proceedings.

Equal division of assets on divorce no longer appropriate for short childless marriages

The Court of Appeal has today delivered its judgment in the matter of Sharp.

The appeal was brought by Julie Sharp, an energy trader, who argued against the principle of an equal division of the marital assets in light of the relatively short length of the marriage and on the basis that she brought the larger proportion of the wealth to the marriage. The parties, who were married for four years, had combined assets of approximately £6.9m, approximately £5.45m of which was acquired during the course of the marriage. Both parties pursued their own individual careers and kept their assets separate. They did not have any children.

Pages