Wood v Rost

Wood v Rost

The husband's liability to pay the third lump sum was contingent on receipt of the second tranche, but the rateable reduction clause must be interpreted to maintain parity between the parties as intended and represented to the court. The wife is entitled to a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest, reflecting a fair rateable adjustment. The husband's claim for contribution to the MIS shortfall fails, as the relevant debts were not personal liabilities properly disclosed or guaranteed by the wife.

Parties
Petitioner: Kenneth McDonald Wood; Respondent: Jayne Patrice Rost
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (family) / Post Judgment Interpretation/enforcement of Consent Order
Outcome
Husband ordered to pay wife further lump sum; husband's claim for contribution to shortfall 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

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 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) / Post Judgment Interpretation/enforcement of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the husband is liable to pay the wife the third lump sum of £200,000 under the consent order after resigning from employment and not receiving the second tranche of sale proceeds
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 5 regarding rateable reduction of liability
  3. 3 Whether the wife is liable for half 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 receipt of the second tranche, but the rateable reduction clause must be interpreted to maintain parity between the parties as intended and represented to the court. The wife is entitled to a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest, reflecting a fair rateable adjustment. The husband's claim for contribution to the MIS shortfall fails, as the relevant debts were not personal liabilities properly disclosed or guaranteed by the wife.

Court Disposition

Husband ordered to pay wife further lump sum; husband's claim for contribution to shortfall dismissed.

Orders

  • Husband to pay wife a further lump sum of £81,752 plus interest from 28 November 2002.
  • Husband's claim under clause 8 for contribution to MIS shortfall dismissed.