SK v WL
[2011] 1 FLR 1471, where the award was 40% to reflect three years’ post-separation endeavour even though the business was the same business and merely grew conventionally. I do consider this to be somewhat of an outlier, particularly as it was a case where the husband had managed to lose a substantial portion of the proceeds of sale of the business. It is not binding upon me. Indeed, I am of the view that, twelve years later, it would not be decided in the same way. There has to be something that removes a case from the principle first espoused by the Court of Appeal in
- 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
