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 parties to this application were married on the 5 April 1977 and there are four children in the family now living.� Only one of the children was under the age of 18 when the hearing commenced; she has now reached the age of 18.�
����������� Since the separation the parties have continued to live in the same house and indeed continued to do so throughout the protracted hearing of this case, the Decree Nisi in the case having issued as long ago as October 2003.�
����������� The application in this matter has been bitterly contested throughout and issues have arisen in relation to the filing of affidavits and the provision of discovery etc.� There was also a contested application for maintenance pending suit.� Very little could be agreed between the parties as a result of which the litigation has been protracted and extremely expensive.� I would imagine that costs to date are well into six figures.
3.�������� The parties� interests in X P Limited � This company is wholly owned by X H Limited but I intend to deal with it separately for the purposes of valuations as this follows the course that the accountancy evidence took before me.
5.�������� A share portfolio in Mr C�s name valued as at the 10 January 2005 at �74,153;
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.