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.
Katherine Kelsey (instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys) for the Applicant Stuart McGhee (instructed by Sherwood Wheatley) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 8-11 June 2021 ____________________
ii) The undoubted fact that the bulk of the assets are non-matrimonial in origin, having been inherited by the husband ("H") some 5 years before separation;
iii) Very sadly, a diagnosis of the wife ("W") in late 2018 of Young Onset Alzheimer's ("YOA") which will have a significant effect on her life expectancy and medical needs during her remaining years.
The difference is �450,000. As is dispiritingly commonplace in so many cases, the combined legal costs of about �483,000 match, and indeed slightly exceed, the difference between them. This is not a "big money" case by any stretch; the costs represent about 18% of the wealth, which is clearly disproportionate. To that should be aggregated the emotional toll which usually accompanies litigation of this nature.
i) Paragraph 13 of the Statement of Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings allocated to a High Court Judge states as follows in unequivocal and mandatory terms:
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.