A v M

A v M

The marital element of the husband's carried interest in Fund 1 is 53% and in Fund 2 is 31%, but to limit Wells sharing, the wife's share of Fund 2 is relocated to Fund 1, resulting in the wife receiving 48.53% of the husband's net-of-tax carry in Fund 1 and 78.91% of his co-investment in Fund 1. The wife receives no share in Fund 2. Realisable assets are divided equally, with the husband retaining the Italian property and paying the wife a lump sum. The wife's claim for periodical payments is dismissed as her needs can be met from her trust resources and share of assets. Both parties' conduct on costs is considered, with the wife penalised for unreasonable negotiation post-PTR.

Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Following Divorce / Final Judgment
Outcome
Financial remedy orders made; wife's claim for periodical payments dismissed; costs order against wife for unreasonable negotiation post-PTR.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Division of Assets, Trust Interests, Periodical Payments, Costs Orders, Child Maintenance
Family Law Financial Remedies Division of Assets Trust Interests Periodical Payments Costs Orders Child Maintenance

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Following Divorce / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the marital acquest, including private equity carried interest and co-investments, be divided?
  2. 2 Should the wife receive periodical payments?
  3. 3 How should trust interests and potential future inheritances be treated?

Ratio Decidendi

The marital element of the husband's carried interest in Fund 1 is 53% and in Fund 2 is 31%, but to limit Wells sharing, the wife's share of Fund 2 is relocated to Fund 1, resulting in the wife receiving 48.53% of the husband's net-of-tax carry in Fund 1 and 78.91% of his co-investment in Fund 1. The wife receives no share in Fund 2. Realisable assets are divided equally, with the husband retaining the Italian property and paying the wife a lump sum. The wife's claim for periodical payments is dismissed as her needs can be met from her trust resources and share of assets. Both parties' conduct on costs is considered, with the wife penalised for unreasonable negotiation post-PTR.

Court Disposition

Financial remedy orders made; wife's claim for periodical payments dismissed; costs order against wife for unreasonable negotiation post-PTR.

Orders

  • Wife to receive 48.53% of husband's net-of-tax carry in Fund 1 and 78.91% of his co-investment in Fund 1, by contingent lump sum orders.
  • Wife to receive no share of Fund 2 carry or co-investment.