CR v - And -

CR v - And -

The beneficial ownership of the FMH is with the husband and wife, not the father or IU Limited. The documents relied on by the husband and father to show otherwise are shams, created to mislead the court and/or the wife. The father provided funds as gifts, not as an investor or beneficial owner. The property was initially intended to be bought in the joint names of husband and wife, and the subsequent use of a company structure did not alter the beneficial ownership.

Parties
Applicant: CR; First Respondent: MZ; Second Respondent: FZ; Third Respondent: IU Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Division Preliminary Issue / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Beneficial Ownership
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant; beneficial ownership declared to be with husband and wife; order for indemnity costs against husband and father.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Sham Documents, Company Ownership, Matrimonial Property, Costs (indemnity)
Family Law Trusts Law Property Law Beneficial Ownership Sham Documents Company Ownership Matrimonial Property Costs (indemnity)

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CR

Applicant

MZ

First Respondent

FZ

Second Respondent

IU Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Division Preliminary Issue / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Beneficial Ownership

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the beneficial owner of the former matrimonial home (FMH)?
  2. 2 If the beneficial owner is a company, who is the beneficial owner of the shares in that company?
  3. 3 Are certain documents (NSHA, MSPA, DSA) shams intended to mislead the court?

Ratio Decidendi

The beneficial ownership of the FMH is with the husband and wife, not the father or IU Limited. The documents relied on by the husband and father to show otherwise are shams, created to mislead the court and/or the wife. The father provided funds as gifts, not as an investor or beneficial owner. The property was initially intended to be bought in the joint names of husband and wife, and the subsequent use of a company structure did not alter the beneficial ownership.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant; beneficial ownership declared to be with husband and wife; order for indemnity costs against husband and father.

Orders

  • Declaration that the FMH is beneficially owned by the husband and wife.
  • Order for indemnity costs against the husband and father.