A v A [2007] EWHC 99 (Fam) (29 January 2007)

A v A [2007] EWHC 99 (Fam) (29 January 2007)

The trusts are not shams because there is no evidence of a common intention between the settlors and the current or original trustees to misrepresent the true nature of the trusts; the trusts are genuine and valid. However, the court may consider the assets held in trust as a financial resource available to the husband under the Thomas v Thomas principle, given his influence and the likelihood of trustees acceding to his requests. The wife does not retain an interest in CWM. The allegations of skimming and business diversion were not proven to the requisite standard.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 99 (Fam)
Parties
Petitioner (wife): A; Respondent (husband): A; Interveners (trustees): ST GEORGE TRUSTEES LIMITED and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted; trusts found not to be shams; assets in trusts considered as financial resources available to the husband for the purposes of award; wife found not to have an interest in CWM; allegations of skimming and business diversion not upheld.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Sham Trusts, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Financial Resources Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Resulting Trusts
Family Law Trusts Law Ancillary Relief Sham Trusts Piercing the Corporate Veil Financial Resources Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Resulting Trusts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Petitioner (wife)

A

Respondent (husband)

ST GEORGE TRUSTEES LIMITED and others

Interveners (trustees)

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trusts holding shares in HDC are shams and thus the assets are available to the husband for ancillary relief purposes
  2. 2 Whether the shares in HDC held by the trusts are to be treated as available to the husband under the principle in Thomas v Thomas
  3. 3 Whether the value of HDC has been artificially reduced by the husband through skimming cash or diverting business to FHP

Ratio Decidendi

The trusts are not shams because there is no evidence of a common intention between the settlors and the current or original trustees to misrepresent the true nature of the trusts; the trusts are genuine and valid. However, the court may consider the assets held in trust as a financial resource available to the husband under the Thomas v Thomas principle, given his influence and the likelihood of trustees acceding to his requests. The wife does not retain an interest in CWM. The allegations of skimming and business diversion were not proven to the requisite standard.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted; trusts found not to be shams; assets in trusts considered as financial resources available to the husband for the purposes of award; wife found not to have an interest in CWM; allegations of skimming and business diversion not upheld.

Orders

  • Ancillary relief awarded to the wife based on the available financial resources, including those in the trusts.
  • No finding that the trusts are shams; trusts remain valid and enforceable.