S v AG
[2011] EWHC 2637 (Fam); [2012] 1 FLR 651, Mostyn said at [8]:-“While matrimonial property will normally be divided equally, this is not an invariable rule. The reason for this is that sometimes the matrimonial property in question will not be the product of the endeavours of the parties within the social-economic partnership that is marriage….Sometimes one party brings assets in which become “part of the economic life of [the] marriage…utilised, converted sustained and enjoyed during the contribution period”….Even if there has been mingling, the original non-matrimonial source of the money often demands reflection in the award. Thus in
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The litigation
- Valuation evidence
- Final open proposals
- The Assets Schedule
- Property Particulars
- Costs
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- Tinker v Tinker
- Lambert
- The Law I must apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- WM v HM
- my emphasis)
- Sharp v Sharp
- S v AG
- S v S
- Vaughan
- FB v PS
- The factual issues
- Sharp
- VV v VV