Conclusion
67.This award provides W with £7.45m net which is about 60% of the present total of £12.47m. H will make a very high level of financial commitment for the children. Stepping back and looking at it in the round, in the light of all the s25 criteria, with the children as my first consideration, I am confident that this is a fair outcome for both parties. It approximates to that which was contained within the Post-Marital Agreement, but goes beyond it so as to meet what I consider to be W’s needs judged against all the relevant factors. I am confident that H will be able to meet his own needs under this order.
- 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