20/01/2012: CHarles and Co nominated for Best Small Firm of the Year 2012

The Birmingham Law Society has confirmed that Charles and Co has been nominated for Best Small Law Firm of the Year 2012.

The Partners were extremely delighted with the news of the nomination. 

The winner will be annouced at the ceremony which will take place on the 22nd of March 2012 at the ICC in Birmingham. 

13/05/2011: Major Decision on Pre-marital Wealth

N v F [2011] EWHC 586 (Fam): PRE MARITAL WEALTH

In N v F the Court considered the question of "how the court should, when exercising its powers to award ancillary relief, reflect, if at all, the property that the husband bought to the marriage back in 1993".

Relevant Facts

·         The parties married in 1993, at which time the husband had assets worth just over £2million. This was the equivalent of £4.2m in today’s money

·         The overall assets now amounted to just over £9.7million.

·         Husband argued that there should be a departure from equality to account for the wealth he brought into the marriage. This would be on the basis of a 57%/43% split in his favour. Wife opposed this and argued that there should be a 50/50 division on the basis that:

1. The Husband’s pre marital wealth had been ‘mingled in’ with the assets accrued during the marriage. This implied that the Husband agreed to share his wealth with his Wife.

2. Sums had been "alienated" by him during the marriage;

3. The Husband had, since 2007,decided to work as a school master for £36,000 pa instead of continuing to earn substantially more in the financial sector. This had the effect of the parties’ maintaining their standard of living by using the capital available;

·         As a consequence of the above, the parties were £687,000 apart in terms of their positions. Combined costs had amounted to £652,000. Mr Justice Mostyn, the presiding judge, stated:

“It seems to be an iron law of ancillary relief proceedings that the final difference between the parties is approximately equal to the costs that they have spent.”

Decision:

·         Mr Justice Mostyn decided "that it would be wrong and unfair for none of H's pre-marital wealth to be excluded from the sharing principle".

·         However, "the marriage was long and the monies were well and truly mingled with marital funds, signifying an acceptance by H that to a great extent the monies, or at least their growth or earnings, would be shared”

·         After hearing evidence he arrived at the decision that £1m should be extracted from the overall total of £9.7m. This represented just over 23% of the amount the Husband had brought into the marriage.

·         As a result the Wife received 50% of just over £8.4million (£240,000 had been set aside for the Daughter’s education). This represented a division of 55.3% / 44.7%  in favour of the Husband of the overall amount (Remember, Husband had put forward the position of 57%/43% in his favour whilst the Wife wanted 50%/50%).

·         The Wife would have received less had it not been for her needs.

Comment:

Gurjit Chahal, head of the matrimonial department at Charles & Co commented that “This is a classic case of the parties’ disproportionately pursuing litigation. The combined costs of the case were almost equivalent to what the parties’ were fighting to gain. The decision is yet another example of the wide discretion given to the Court’s under the matrimonial causes act and the unpredictability of litigating to trial, as each case will turn on its own facts. Once again the Court has chosen to highlight that any award will be subject to the needs of the parties’ (in this case the Wife’s needs), which will be trump factor in almost all cases.”

06/07/2010: New website