Latest News

ghasjksah sajk has

Not always is the answer. The case of Smith decided on appeal in May 2007 makes it clear that an equal division after a 10 year marriage, where one party had brought the company and the house to the marriage, was not the correct approach. The judge had erred in awarding the company to the husband at full value and then awarding periodical payments to the wife as well as income from the premises holding company. The judgement can be read in more detail at 2007 2 FLR 1103.

Last year the courts dealth with a claim for damages following an allegation of paternity, which proved false. After 5 years of paying the claimant successfully argued (when DNA testing proved that he was not the father) that he should be entitled to damages. The court said that:

(1) The tort of deceit had been made out
(2) The impecuniosity of the woman was irrelevant
(3) It was not a novel claim
(4) It did not open the floodgates
(5) It was not contrary to Public Policy