Tag Archives: High court

Financial matters upon divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships

Posted on by

Hill Dickinson gives Frost Readers the low down on separating.

When the majority of married couples divorce it is likely that there will also be financial matters to deal with. This may include the family home, businesses, pensions or maintenance. The same circumstances will also apply to the dissolution of civil partnerships.

 

It is important that financial matters following a divorce or dissolution are finalised to ensure that you are protected against any future claims from your former husband or wife or civil partner.

 

Financial matters will be resolved when the parties receive a final order from the court. This does not mean that the parties will need to attend court; but legal advice should be sought to ensure that you are protected for the future.

 

If a final financial order is not received then there is a risk that your former husband, wife or civil partner could make a claim in the future.

 

It is important to note that the court will consider financial circumstances at the time they are resolved. Although in some cases the parties’ circumstances at the time of separation may be relevant.

 

The outcome of any court hearing or negotiation will depend massively upon the circumstances of the case. The court in England and Wales has very wide discretion to deal with matrimonial matters as they see fit.

 

There are circumstances where assets acquired during a marriage or civil partnership could be excluded from financial matters upon divorce. So it is imperative to seek advice upon separation.

 

In 2011 the High Court heard a case where they were asked to resolve financial matters following a divorce. The wife had won the lottery during the marriage. Part of the lottery winnings had been used to purchase the matrimonial home.

 

The court found that there is a sharp distinction between “matrimonial” and “non-matrimonial” property. As the lottery ticket had been purchased following separation, with the wife’s sole earnings and without her husband’s knowledge the court found that the lottery winnings were “non-matrimonial”.

 

However, the wife had used some of the lottery winnings to purchase the matrimonial home. The court held that the money spent on the house was converted into “matrimonial” property. The High Court ruled that matrimonial property is more likely to be shared, and consequently the husband was entitled to receive a proportion of the matrimonial home.
These sorts of cases are fact specific and it is for that reason that it is essential that separated couples seek advice as to the legal consequences of their separation.

 

If financial matters are resolved at the time of divorce, the majority of orders will include a clean break. This means that the agreement is in full and final settlement of any claims either party will have against the other in the future. A clean break may not be appropriate for example if monthly maintenance is being paid to a former spouse.

 

Super-injunction Footballer To Sue Twitter

Posted on by

Social networking site Twitter is being sued by the footballer at the center of the super-injunction storm after it published his identity.

Nick Armstrong, Partner, Sports & Media Group at Charles Russell LLP comments:

“Twitter Inc. and some of its users are being sued in the High Court in London by the individual who obtained an injunction against The Sun and Imogen Thomas concerning allegations about his private life. In the injunction action (see below), and in the new Twitter action, he is referred to as “CTB”. The full case title of the new action is CTB v. Twitter Inc. and Persons Unknown. It is case no. HQ11X01814.

The action was commenced on 18 May. The “persons unknown” are described as those “responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts” but the latter are listed in confidential appendices. It relates to the widely-reported posting on May 8 of a series of “tweets” purporting to name a number of celebrities who had obtained so-called super-injunctions, and describe the activities covered by the injunctions.

It marks the first concerted attempt to deal legally with way in which social media have of late been used an a vehicle for gossip and supposed ‘information’ in an apparent attempt to undermine or evade the authority of the High Court.

The news comes in the week that sees judicial attempts to inject some clarity into a public debate which in the media at least has featured wild and inaccurate comment about the perceived threat posed by “super-injunctions”. For one thing, the injunctions that have caused the debate aren’t super injunctions at all – the term was hijacked in the media to refer misleadingly to the injunctions obtained by celebrities whose identities were anonymised to enable the injunction to be effective. The Neuberger Report (of the Committee on Super-Injunctions) was published on 20 May. It points out that in fact the Super-Injunction is an order which prohibits (i) publishing confidential or private information AND (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings. Super-injunctions are reserved for exceptional cases and are only granted for very short periods, and only where this level of secrecy is necessary to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed. Since January 2010, only two such super-injunctions have been granted, one which was set aside on appeal and the second which was in force for seven days.

That is not the case with the celebrity injunctions, which are termed “Anonymised Injunctions” i.e. the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated.

In fact the principles of open justice are respected by Anonymised Injunctions because, since the relevant parties are anonymised, a full judgment can be issued in which the judge sets out his reasons for applying the balancing factors imposed by the Human Rights Act (right to freedom of expression v right to respect for pricate and family life) in making the order. This strikes the balance between open justice, and appropriate protection of privacy where the judge has found that to be required on the basis of the evidence put before him.

This happened this week when Eady J published his judgment in the CTB ‘Anonymised Injunction’ case itself. It should be read ( http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/ctb-v-ngn-limited-judgment-16052011) by anyone thinking of commenting about the issue of Anonymised Injunctions, as it puts in context much ill-informed comment which has obscured many of the real issues involved in the developing (and still very young) law of privacy enacted by Parliament in 1998 and applied by the judiciary.”