MA v SK

MA v SK

The court held that it had jurisdiction under Part III MFPA 1984 as the Wife was habitually resident and domiciled in England, and that it was appropriate to make an order given the parties' connections to England, the lack of provision in Saudi Arabia, and the existence of the London Property. The Husband remained the beneficial owner of the London Property and Cannes property, with S Investments NV acting as nominee. The Wife was entitled to provision based on her needs, assessed at £10 million, to be satisfied by transfer of the equity in the London Property and Cannes property. The Husband's claims of a binding promise to transfer all properties and of the Wife owing money to the K...

Parties
Applicant/wife/claimant/defendant: MA; Respondent/husband/defendant: SK; Claimant/plaintiff: S Investments NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy/property/part III MFPA 1984/part IV FLA 1996/mwpa 1882/possession / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Wife's Part III MFPA 1984 application allowed; MWPA and Part IV FLA 1996 claims dismissed; S Investments NV's possession claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Financial Provision After Foreign Divorce, Beneficial Ownership of Property, Jurisdiction Under Part III MFPA 1984, Occupation Orders, Nominee Companies and Trusts, Needs Based Financial Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Divorce Settlements
Family Law Property Law Trusts International Private Law Financial Provision After Foreign Divorce Beneficial Ownership of Property Jurisdiction Under Part III MFPA 1984 Occupation Orders +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA

Applicant/wife/claimant/defendant

SK

Respondent/husband/defendant

S Investments NV

Claimant/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy/property/part III MFPA 1984/part IV FLA 1996/mwpa 1882/possession / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant financial relief after a foreign divorce under Part III MFPA 1984
  2. 2 Whether the Wife is beneficial owner of the London Property and Cannes property
  3. 3 Whether the Husband made a binding promise to transfer properties to the Wife

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had jurisdiction under Part III MFPA 1984 as the Wife was habitually resident and domiciled in England, and that it was appropriate to make an order given the parties' connections to England, the lack of provision in Saudi Arabia, and the existence of the London Property. The Husband remained the beneficial owner of the London Property and Cannes property, with S Investments NV acting as nominee. The Wife was entitled to provision based on her needs, assessed at £10 million, to be satisfied by transfer of the equity in the London Property and Cannes property. The Husband's claims of a binding promise to transfer all properties and of the Wife owing money to the K...

Court Disposition

Wife's Part III MFPA 1984 application allowed; MWPA and Part IV FLA 1996 claims dismissed; S Investments NV's possession claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Transfer of the London Property to the Wife, including shareholding in S Investments NV as necessary
  • Transfer of the Husband's beneficial interest in the Cannes property to the Wife