Juffali v Juffali
[2016] EWHC 1684 (Fam). Needs do not exist in a vacuum. Roberts J identified a number of important principles:-“(i) The first consideration in any assessment of needs must be the welfare of any minor child or children of the family.(ii) After that, the principal factors which are likely to impact on the court’s assessment of needs are (a) the length of the marriage; (b) the length of the period, following the end of the marriage, during which the applicant spouse will be making contributions to the welfare of the family; (c) the standard of living during the marriage; (d) the age of the applicant; and (e) the available resources as defined by section 25(2)(a).(iii) There is an inter-relationship between the level at which future needs will be assessed and the period during which a court finds those needs should be met by the paying former spouse. The longer that period, the more likely it is that a court will not assess those needs on the basis throughout of a standard of living which replicates that enjoyed during the currency of the marriage.(iv) In this context, it is entirely principled in terms of approach for the court to assess its award on the basis that needs, both in relation to housing and income, will reduce in future in an appropriate case.”
- 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
