Matrimonial & Family Personal Injury Personal Injury Compensation Protection Wills, Probate, Gifts, Trusts & Inheritance Tax Lasting Powers of Attorney Contested Wills & Probate Claims Residential Conveyancing Enfranchisement / Right to Buy Employment Issues Tax General Litigation and Disputes Professional Negligence Financial Services
Agency Corporate & Commercial Services Commercial Property Employment Issues Commercial Disputes Internet & E-Commerce Tax Debt Collection Financial Services
Our Service Farming Medical, Dental & Veterinary Internet & E-Commerce Public Sector
Partners Key Contacts
Medical, Dental & Veterinary Farming Public Sector Internet & E-Commerce Landlords & Tenants Restaurants, Cafes, Pubs, Hotels & Shops Property Development & Complex Property Transactions Charities Services for the Elderly
Barr Ellison - making life go your way

Divorce Settlements v The Credit Crunch

 

The failure of a divorced husband to use the credit crunch as a reason for reopening his settlement is likely to have an impact on the divorces of other wealthy individuals.

Myerson v Myerson hit the headlines recently when fund manager Brian Myerson went back to court to try and claw back some of the assets he had lost due to the fall in share prices. His wife had received 43% of the couple’s  £25.8 million assets at the time of the divorce in 2008, but her share had been primarily in ‘copper bottomed assets’ while he retained a significant shareholding that had fallen from £2.99 to  27.5p. The Court of Appeal did not accept his argument that the credit crunch was a new event that warranted the original order being set aside.

Explains Barr Ellison family law specialist Helen Saggers: “The Court does have jurisdiction to look into varying financial orders if new events invalidate the basis upon which the order was made. But in this case the Court upheld the well established principle that “natural processes of price fluctuation, whether in houses, shares or any other property, and however dramatic” will not necessarily lead to successful variation applications.”

The ruling is a warning to other couples negotiating financial settlements believes Helen: “Clients need to be aware when negotiating financial settlements that fluctuations in the price of property or shares – up or down -  after an agreement has been reached may not allow them to re-visit that agreement. This is likely to lead to couples sharing the riskier assets. Husbands, for example, are much less likely to want to give their spouse the marital home in exchange for them keeping their share portfolios or company assets.”

For more information contact Helen Saggers

 

Press contact: Judith Gaskell, Cambridge PR on 01223 309288 / 07814 523734 or judith.gaskellpr@ukonline.co.uk

 

The information given in this article is of a general nature only and should not be considered as advice applicable to any particular situation for which specific request should be made to us.

Latest News / Events

No sporting chance with ambush marketing
With Wimbledon and the World Cup over and the Olympics just around the corner...

read more

All goes smoothly at annual Bumps Event
Guests of Barr Ellison Solicitors, NatWest and 35 Finance enjoyed an enviable view of the...

read more

"Barr Ellison has provided effective timely advice to Sawston Parish Council for over 30 years across a broad range of legal services. What makes our relationship work is their commitment to providing excellent service and to being readily accessible by phone and email."
Eugene Murray, Chairman, Sawston Parish Council

Keep up to date with our news

By entering your email you are agreeing to our Privacy policy.

© 2010 Barr Ellison LLP Solicitors | Sitemap | Legal Information
Tel: 01223 417200   law@barrellison.co.uk