A v M (No 2)

A v M (No 2)

The final order required the respondent to pay the applicant specified percentages of proceeds received from Fund I, not to provide an interest in any continuation or replacement fund. The respondent complied by paying the applicant the full value of her share. The establishment of the CF and the respondent's reinvestment of proceeds did not entitle the applicant to participate in the CF. The order's anti-avoidance provisions did not extend to granting the applicant an interest in the CF. The respondent's breach of disclosure obligations did not affect the construction of the order.

Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Proceedings / Application for Construction/implementation of Final Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Construction of Court Orders, Enforcement of Financial Orders, Disclosure Obligations
Family Law Financial Remedies Construction of Court Orders Enforcement of Financial Orders Disclosure Obligations

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Proceedings / Application for Construction/implementation of Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to share in the respondent's interest in a continuation fund (CF) under the terms of the final order
  2. 2 Proper construction of paragraphs 15, 25, and 26 of the final order
  3. 3 Effect of respondent's breach of disclosure obligations on applicant's entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The final order required the respondent to pay the applicant specified percentages of proceeds received from Fund I, not to provide an interest in any continuation or replacement fund. The respondent complied by paying the applicant the full value of her share. The establishment of the CF and the respondent's reinvestment of proceeds did not entitle the applicant to participate in the CF. The order's anti-avoidance provisions did not extend to granting the applicant an interest in the CF. The respondent's breach of disclosure obligations did not affect the construction of the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed