SG v PG

SG v PG

The sums used by the husband to purchase properties and repay the mortgage were not gifts but transactions carried out under a power of attorney for his parents; the presumption of advancement was rebutted by clear evidence of intention; the wife's conduct in taking cash, while deceitful, was not sufficient to reduce her award; the wife failed to prove the husband had substantial undeclared income; the costs of the interveners were properly incurred and should be borne by the wife.

Parties
Applicant: SG; Respondent: PG; 1st Intervener: IG (By the Official Solicitor acting as Guardian ad Litem); 2nd Intervener: JF & CP (The Personal Representatives of the Estate of BG)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted; wife's claim for gifts rejected; lump sum and periodical payments ordered; interveners' costs to be paid by wife.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Matrimonial Property, Powers of Attorney, Undue Influence, Presumption of Advancement, Costs
Family Law Ancillary Relief Matrimonial Property Powers of Attorney Undue Influence Presumption of Advancement Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SG

Applicant

PG

Respondent

IG (By the Official Solicitor acting as Guardian ad Litem)

1st Intervener

JF & CP (The Personal Representatives of the Estate of BG)

2nd Intervener

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sums used by husband to purchase properties and repay mortgage were gifts or loans from his parents
  2. 2 Whether the wife is entitled to a greater share of assets based on alleged gifts
  3. 3 Whether the wife's conduct in taking cash should reduce her award

Ratio Decidendi

The sums used by the husband to purchase properties and repay the mortgage were not gifts but transactions carried out under a power of attorney for his parents; the presumption of advancement was rebutted by clear evidence of intention; the wife's conduct in taking cash, while deceitful, was not sufficient to reduce her award; the wife failed to prove the husband had substantial undeclared income; the costs of the interveners were properly incurred and should be borne by the wife.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted; wife's claim for gifts rejected; lump sum and periodical payments ordered; interveners' costs to be paid by wife.

Orders

  • Wife awarded lump sum of £220,000 (41% of capital)
  • Wife to receive periodical payments of £500/month for 18 months, then £300/month for 2 years