£7.45m
to allow for unforeseen contingencies. 65.The structure of the award shall include a transfer of ‘X’ Street to W, as the Post-Marital Agreement envisaged. It is more logical for her to have the property, and sell it how and when she wants. In any event, I do not consider that H can pay the entire award in liquid cash. Thus, the award shall comprise:i)‘X’ Street £2,045,791ii)W bank accounts £990,103iii)W investments £15,343iv)W pension £117,036v)W liabilities -£399,847vi)Balance to be paid by H £4,681,574Such sum shall be payable by H as follows, within a timeframe which he accepted he could comply with:i) £3.5m by 14 June 2022.ii) The balance of £1,181,574 by 14 September 2022.This will enable W to buy a London property, without needing to sell ‘X’ Street until such time as it suits her. 66.Other matters:i)I reject the claim by W that H should meet her projected costs of the Children Act proceedings which are said to be £173,000. I know nothing about those proceedings, including how proportionately or reasonably each party is conducting the litigation. In my judgment, each must bear responsibility for their own costs. It will be a matter for the judge hearing those proceedings to decide if a cost order one way or the other is warranted. ii)I shall order child maintenance in accordance with W’s proposal, together with the agreed extra items. H shall pay the school fees and, when applicable, university tuition fees. iii)Chattels shall be divided by agreement. iv)The interim arrangements shall continue until payment of the first lump sum of £3.5m.v)The joint bank account ending …6196 (containing £17,269) shall be transferred to H for administrative purposes, with W receiving/retaining the monies in the account. Strictly, this takes W a touch above my determination of her needs requirement, but it is a modest sum.vi)The rental deposit is to be repaid by W to H. vii)I shall not provide for the additional miscellaneous costs sought by W.viii)Airmiles to be divided equally.ix)There shall be a clean break.
- MR JUSTICE PEEL
- £2,230,000 mortgage liability
- Computation
- £117,036
- Sharing principle
- The Law
- Charman v Charman
- White v White
- Miller; McFarlane
- [2020]
- [2017] 2
- [2011] 2 FLR 980
- [2018] 1
- Charman (supra)
- Miller/McFarlane
- BD v FD [2017] 1 FLR 1420.
- [2017]
- The Law: Pre-Marital and Post-Marital Agreements
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
- The Law: inter vivos subvention
- M v M [2020] EWFC 41
- [1995] 2 FLR 668
- [2014] EWHC 502
- [2017] EWCA Civ 1545
- [2005] EWHC 2860
- Alireza v Radwan [2018] 1 FLR 1333
- The Pre-Marital Agreement
- undue
- undue
- BN v MA [2014] EWHC 2450
- Inter vivos subventions by H’s father
- Alireza
- fact
- timing
- The parties’ proposals
- Needs and outcome
- £4m.
- £3,319,000
- £7,319,000
- £7.45m
- Conclusion
- Costs
