XW v XH
[2020] 1 FLR 1015], a finding of special contribution will be flawed); and(c)The amount of the wealth alone may be so extraordinary as to make it easy for the party who generated it to claim an exceptional and individual quality which deserves special treatment. Often, however, he or she will need independently to establish such a quality, whether by genius in business or some other field. A windfall is not enough.”50.The second potential ground that is said, by the Husband, to justify departure from equality in this case is to be found in the concept of post-separation endeavour. There have been numerous authorities that have touched on this concept and it would not be remotely proportionate to review them all. Again, I accept that the courts have recognised that wealth generated after separation may not be regarded as the fruits of the marital partnership, thus justifying a departure from equality. One such example was identified by Mostyn J 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
