Gowers v Gowers [2011] EWHC 3485 (Fam) (09 November 2011)

Gowers v Gowers [2011] EWHC 3485 (Fam) (09 November 2011)

The court had no jurisdiction to order payment of the £500,000 held in court to the wife because the husband had no beneficial interest in the company or its assets, there was no basis for piercing the corporate veil in the absence of impropriety, and the payment into court by the company did not create any trust or security in favour of the wife. The order was therefore set aside as being made without power or jurisdiction.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3485 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant/wife: Nova Karen Gowers; Respondent/husband: Benjamin Daniel Gowers; Intervener/company: City Docs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Application by Third Party (city Docs Limited) to Set Aside Order for Payment Out of Funds Held in Court
Outcome
Application granted; order set aside
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction of Family Court Over Company Assets, Enforcement of Lump Sum Orders, Freezing Orders
Family Law Company Law Ancillary Relief Corporate Veil Jurisdiction of Family Court Over Company Assets Enforcement of Lump Sum Orders Freezing Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nova Karen Gowers

Applicant/wife

Benjamin Daniel Gowers

Respondent/husband

City Docs Limited

Intervener/company

Procedural Posture

Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Application by Third Party (city Docs Limited) to Set Aside Order for Payment Out of Funds Held in Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to order payment of £500,000 held in court to the wife from funds paid in by a third party company
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil could be pierced to treat company assets as those of the husband in matrimonial proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the payment into court by the company created any trust or security in favour of the wife

Ratio Decidendi

The court had no jurisdiction to order payment of the £500,000 held in court to the wife because the husband had no beneficial interest in the company or its assets, there was no basis for piercing the corporate veil in the absence of impropriety, and the payment into court by the company did not create any trust or security in favour of the wife. The order was therefore set aside as being made without power or jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order set aside

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of the order of 11 March 2011 set aside
  • £500,000 and accrued interest to be paid out forthwith to City Docs Limited