Calderbank
offers. Moreover, my award is considerably more than the Husband offered, even if considerably less than the Wife sought. I do not consider that any disparity in costs is sufficient to make an adjustment to the order I have otherwise decided upon. 98.Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the quality of the representation in this case. Nothing more could have been said or done on behalf of either party. Mr Justice Moor17 March 2022
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The breakdown of the marriage
- The respective Forms E
- The evidence before me
- The position of the PE company
- Section 25 statements
- The valuation of DEF Inc and the other business
- Statement of Issues
- Open proposals
- The Tax enquiry
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- The Assets Schedule
- £ 3,551,912
- The law I have to apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- Hart
- my emphasis)
- Juffali v Juffali
- The evidence I heard
- My assessment of the assets
- The appropriate deduction for tax liabilities in relation to the enquiry by the tax authority of Country X
- Two relatively small loans made by JR’s estate and a trust belonging to KR to the IR Holding Trust
- The resulting overall figure
- The Pre-Nuptial Agreement
- Radmacher v Granatino
- The DEF Inc Side Deed
- My conclusions as to non-matrimonial property
- XW v XH
- Wells v Wells
- The structure of the award
- £ 120,479
- Calderbank