Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The application before us today relates to an order made by the Registrar on 16 th November, 2010, when amongst other matters, he ordered that the former matrimonial home, in which the husband was living then and is still living, should be sold and that the wife should receive seventy-five per cent of the net proceeds or £350,000, whichever was the greater. At the time the market value was agreed to be £875,000. The husband was also ordered to pay within seven days, the sum of £14,700 in respect of the wife's pension with Aviva. That he has failed to do.
In January 2011, notwithstanding the order, the wife agreed in principle that she would be willing to transfer the property to the husband for the sum of £350,000, thereby enabling him to remain in the matrimonial home. At that stage she was also willing to forego the £14,700 Aviva payment for the sake of a quick agreement.
Now in fact, that didn't happen. In our judgment, the delay was mostly due to the husband. Eventually, lawyers were instructed in June to process a transfer of the property from the joint names of the parties to the husband alone.
We are told that the husband would be in a position therefore to pass contract also on Friday 19 th August, 2011, in respect of a transfer out of the joint names to the husband. The husband's offer includes the Aviva sum of £14, 700. We have been taken through the calculations and it is clear that, on the basis of £405,000, the wife will receive marginally more on a transfer to the husband than she would on a sale to the third party; certainly she will receive no less. There is some uncertainty as to what fees might be payable to Ogier in respect of the aborted work they will have done.
It has to be recalled that, as recently as July, when the third party offer of £880,000 was received, the wife was willing for the husband to remain in the property and buy her out. The only reason given to us for her change in stance since then is that she feels a moral obligation to the purchasers and secondly she is worried that taking over the house, which apparently has a large garden, will be too much for the husband.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.