S v S
[2007] 1 FLR 2120); earn-outs or lock-ins (eg where the payer has to continue to work in the business in the future, despite the sale); truly new ventures, created, he submits, without the use of matrimonial assets; or where the payee has already been bought out, at a fair price, from the asset that has subsequently increased in value. I am certainly not prepared to accept that this is an exhaustive list but it does answer the point made by Mr Bishop that, to ignore post-separation endeavour, would fall foul of the requirement in section 25 to consider the parties’ respective contributions. I am further not convinced that the “truly new venture” needs to be created without the use of matrimonial assets. It will depend on the circumstances, although the assets used may be a relevant consideration as to whether the circumstance justifies departure from equality.53.My attention was drawn to a decision of my own,
- JUDGMENT
- The relevant history
- The breakdown of the marriage
- The relevant litigation
- Open Proposals
- Section 25 statement
- Supporting witness statements
- The schedule of assets
- The parties’ respective Position Statements
- The law I have to apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Work v Gray
- XW v XH
- JL v SL (No 2)
- SK v WL
- Cowan v Cowan
- Evans v Evans
- S v S
- CO v YZ
- Wyatt v Vince
- Cooper-Hohn v Hohn
- Lucas
- British Railways Board v Herrington
- The evidence that I heard
- My conclusions – special contribution
- My conclusions – post-separation endeavour
- Postscript
