image of 4 Paper Buildings logo1 CORCoram ChambersFamily Law Week Email SubscriptionHarcourt ChambersAlpha Biolabssite by Zehuti

Judge takes robust approach to reality of company shares in financial remedies case

Macur J rejects arguments for departure from principle of equality in financial remedies case and rules that the husband’s shareholding was by no means illiquid.

In R v R [2012] EWHC 2390 (Fam) a financial remedy case reported this week in Family Law Week, Macur J rejected the husband's argument that there should be a departure from the principle of equality in assessing the financial distribution between the parties.

The husband argued that given the parties relative contributions to the growth of the company and its success post-separation meant that equality was not appropriate.  He also argued that his shareholding in the company should be treated as an illiquid asset.

The judge rejected these arguments and adopted the wife's description of the company as a "cash cow."

An order was made on the basis of a clean break as to capital transferring the former matrimonial home and accompanying land and an endowment policy to the wife with a further order for a lump sum of £4 million payable as to

In the interim, the Husband was ordered to pay periodical payments of £12,000 per month until payment of the first £1.25m, and thereafter £7,500 per month until further order together with a sum equal to the mortgage interest repayments in relation to the former matrimonial home until the mortgage upon the same is redeemed from the second lump sum payment.

The wife was to give credit for any interest upon loan notes to which she would otherwise be entitled and one half of any net monies she recovers as the result of outstanding litigation concerning lapse of critical illness cover.

Click here for the full judgment and for the judgment summary prepared by Sally Gore, barrister, 14 Gray's Inn Square