Wood v Rost [2007] EWHC 1511 (Fam) (18 June 2007)

Wood v Rost [2007] EWHC 1511 (Fam) (18 June 2007)

The husband's liability to pay the third lump sum was contingent on his receipt of the second tranche; however, the phrase 'rateably reduced' must be interpreted to maintain parity between the parties as intended and represented to the approving judge. The proper construction entitles the wife to a further lump sum...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1511 (Fam)
Parties
Petitioner: Kenneth McDonald Wood; Respondent: Jayne Patrice Rost
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (family/matrimonial Finance) / Post Consent Order, Application for Interpretation/enforcement
Outcome
Husband ordered to pay wife a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest; husband's claim under clause 8 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Consent Orders, Interpretation of Orders, Enforcement of Financial Orders, Disclosure Obligations
Family Law Ancillary Relief Consent Orders Interpretation of Orders Enforcement of Financial Orders Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth McDonald Wood

Petitioner

Jayne Patrice Rost

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (family/matrimonial Finance) / Post Consent Order, Application for Interpretation/enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the husband is liable to pay the wife the third lump sum of £200,000 after resigning from TFL and not receiving the second tranche of consideration
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'rateably reduced' in the consent order
  3. 3 Whether the wife is liable for half of the shortfall on the dissolution of MIS under clause 8

Ratio Decidendi

The husband's liability to pay the third lump sum was contingent on his receipt of the second tranche; however, the phrase 'rateably reduced' must be interpreted to maintain parity between the parties as intended and represented to the approving judge. The proper construction entitles the wife to a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest. The husband's claim for contribution to the MIS shortfall fails because the relevant debt was known to him and not disclosed, and there was no personal liability on the wife under clause 8.

Court Disposition

Husband ordered to pay wife a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest; husband's claim under clause 8 dismissed.

Orders

  • Husband to pay wife £81,752 plus interest from 28 November 2002.
  • Husband's claim for contribution to MIS shortfall dismissed.