G v S [2009] JRC 015A (03 February 2009)

G v S [2009] JRC 015A (03 February 2009)

The court held that the husband's business should not be valued as high as £175,000 for the purposes of asset division, given the practical difficulties in realising such a value, the nature of the business, and prevailing market conditions. Further evidence from an accountant is required to establish a more accurate figure, and significant adjustment to the proposed value is necessary.

Citation
[2009] JRC 015A
Parties
Petitioner: Wife; Respondent: Husband
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (matrimonial Finance) / Interlocutory Judgment on Asset Division
Outcome
Further evidence required; no final order on division of assets at this stage.
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Assets, Valuation of Business Interests, Lump Sum Compensation, Pension Sharing
Family Law Division of Matrimonial Assets Valuation of Business Interests Lump Sum Compensation Pension Sharing

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wife

Petitioner

Husband

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (matrimonial Finance) / Interlocutory Judgment on Asset Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the matrimonial assets be divided between the parties?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate value to assign to the husband's business for the purposes of distribution?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the husband's business should not be valued as high as £175,000 for the purposes of asset division, given the practical difficulties in realising such a value, the nature of the business, and prevailing market conditions. Further evidence from an accountant is required to establish a more accurate figure, and significant adjustment to the proposed value is necessary.

Court Disposition

Further evidence required; no final order on division of assets at this stage.

Orders

  • Parties to provide further accountant evidence on the value of the husband's business before final division of assets.