DW and another v CG – WLR Daily
DW and another v CG [2016] EWHC 2965 (Fam)
‘On the dissolution of their marriage a husband and wife had resolved their respective financial remedy claims by way of a final consent order made in 2009 (“the 2009 order”), which required the husband to make a significant lump sum payment to the wife in a series of instalments. The order further contained provision entitling the wife to sell a number of properties, held in the husband’s sole name, should the husband default on payment and a right for the wife to continue to reside in one of those properties (“the property”) until payment by the husband of the final lump sum instalment. The husband failed to pay the final instalment and, in 2010, the court made an order for sale of the property with the outstanding interim payment to be provided to the wife from the net proceeds of sale. That order was never implemented and in 2011 bankruptcy proceedings were commenced against the husband. The wife registered a restriction against the property before the husband was made bankrupt in 2012. Following an initial agreed period of inactivity in the family proceedings the husband and his new partner were both discharged from bankruptcy in 2013. In 2014 they both entered into a settlement agreement to purchase any interest their estates in bankruptcy “may” have had in respect of the properties and other assets and, between themselves, entered into a declaration of trust in relation to the property with the apparent effect of frustrating the wife’s claim. The wife recommenced her application for sale of the property and such an order was duly made with the requirement that the net proceeds of sale be paid in to court. The husband was then invited by the court to make representations as to why the wife should not receive the final instalment from the net proceeds of sale. He contended, inter alia, that the terms of the 2009 order had never created an equitable interest in the property in the wife’s favour and consequently there was no basis on which the court could go further and consider whether that interest fell outside of, or how it was effected by, his bankruptcy. The husband and his new partner appealed against the decision that the wife was entitled to receive her outstanding instalment payment from the net proceeds of sale.’
WLR Daily, November 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
