Computation
16.Inevitably, the attrition of litigation has dented the parties’ resources. Putting to one side the disputed territory of potential future wealth accretion by H from his father, the net assets are:Joint property (‘X’ Street) £2,045,791H property: Y town £640,564H property: Z town £2,546,530H properties: B property (ignoring usufruct) £2,818,489Joint bank accounts £21,634H bank accounts £285,334H investments £3,519,065H personal assets/cash £21,890H Company 3 liquidation -£18,018H pension £80,011H liabilities -£204,621W bank accounts £990,103W investments £15,343W liabilities -£399,847W pension
- 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