Evans v Evans [2013] EWHC 506 (Fam) (13 March 2013)

Evans v Evans [2013] EWHC 506 (Fam) (13 March 2013)

There is no basis for a departure from equality in the division of the Confluence shares; both parties' contributions were significant and the husband's ongoing involvement does not justify a greater share. The available capital resources should be divided to meet the wife's housing and income needs, with a clean...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 506 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: Jenifer Eileen Evans; Respondent: Mark Stephen Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Rehearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; equal division of Confluence shares; division of capital resources to meet needs; clean break to be achieved; add-back claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Division of Assets, Spousal Maintenance, Clean Break, Special Contribution, Add Back, Needs Assessment
Family Law Financial Remedies Division of Assets Spousal Maintenance Clean Break Special Contribution Add Back Needs Assessment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenifer Eileen Evans

Applicant

Mark Stephen Evans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What percentage of Confluence shares should each party receive?
  2. 2 How should the currently available capital resources be divided?
  3. 3 Should there be a clean break or ongoing maintenance?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no basis for a departure from equality in the division of the Confluence shares; both parties' contributions were significant and the husband's ongoing involvement does not justify a greater share. The available capital resources should be divided to meet the wife's housing and income needs, with a clean break to be achieved as soon as practicable. The wife's add-back claim is only partly established and does not justify a notional reattribution. The division of assets and maintenance must reflect the parties' needs and available resources until the Confluence shares are realised.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; equal division of Confluence shares; division of capital resources to meet needs; clean break to be achieved; add-back claim rejected.

Orders

  • Confluence shares to be divided equally between the parties (each to receive 17.35% of the total 34.7% holding).
  • Available capital resources to be divided to meet the wife's housing and income needs, with specific sums to be paid as set out in the judgment.