![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> WA v Executors of the Estate of HA & Ors [2015] EWHC 2233 (Fam) (11 June 2015) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2233.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 2233 (Fam) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
FAMILY
COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
____________________
![]() | Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
The ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | First Respondents |
|
-and- |
||
JA |
Second Respondent |
|
-and- |
||
KA |
Third Respondent |
|
-and- |
||
LA |
Fourth Respondents |
____________________
Miss Lucy Stone QC and Mr Justin Warshaw
QC for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 10th and 11th June 2015
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
The history of the family
The financial negotiations and consent order
This litigation
The respective arguments
The Law
The Barder group of authorities
(a) An eventhas
occurred since the making of the order that invalidates the basis or fundamental assumption upon which the order
was
made so that an appeal would be certain or
very
likely to succeed;
(b) The new event shouldhave
occurred within a relatively short time of the order
having
been made.
(c) The application for leave to appeal out of time should be made reasonably promptly in the circumstances of the case; and
(d) The grant of leave to appeal out of time should not prejudice third parties whohave
acquired, in good faith and for
valuable
consideration, interests in property which is the subject matter of the relevant order.
The Miller group of authorities
"The parties' matrimonial home, even if thiswas
brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually
has
a central place in any marriage. So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. As already noted, in principle the entitlement of each party to a share of matrimonial property is the same however long or short the marriage may
have
been."
Radmacher
The issues to be determined
(a)Was
the Husband's death foreseeable?
(b) If not,was
his award a sharing award (and hence not susceptible to challenge) or a needs based award?
(c) If itwas
a needs based award, what order is now appropriate?
Was
the Husband's death foreseeable?
Was
this a sharing award or a needs award?
Conclusion on Barder
What order is now appropriate?
Conclusion