Kingdon v Kingdon

Kingdon v Kingdon

The husband's deliberate and material non-disclosure of his shareholding in MPH vitiated the 2005 order, but the defect could be remedied by an additional lump sum payment reflecting the wife's share of the gain, rather than setting aside the entire order and rehearing the case. The award of 35% of the net gain was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Simon Charles Kingdon; Respondent: Helen Jane Kingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Non Disclosure, Variation/setting Aside of Consent Orders, Clean Break Settlements, Asset Division, Sharing Principle
Family Law Ancillary Relief Non Disclosure Variation/setting Aside of Consent Orders Clean Break Settlements Asset Division Sharing Principle

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Charles Kingdon

Appellant

Helen Jane Kingdon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure by the husband warranted setting aside the 2005 ancillary relief order and a rehearing or could be remedied by an additional lump sum payment.
  2. 2 How to apply the sharing principle to an asset partly matrimonial and partly non-matrimonial.
  3. 3 Whether the wife should receive 35% of the net gain on the undisclosed shares.

Ratio Decidendi

The husband's deliberate and material non-disclosure of his shareholding in MPH vitiated the 2005 order, but the defect could be remedied by an additional lump sum payment reflecting the wife's share of the gain, rather than setting aside the entire order and rehearing the case. The award of 35% of the net gain was within the judge's discretion, and there was no basis for crediting the earlier £200,000 payment against the new award.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The husband's appeal is dismissed.
  • The order for the husband to pay the wife an additional lump sum of £481,000 stands.