Financial Remedies Journal: P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC B9 (10 February 2022)

P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC B9 (10 February 2022)10 February 2022

Published: 22/02/2022 09:00

Polly Morgan | Case EditorPolly is the sole author of the textbook Morgan's Family Law (Oxford University Press 2021) and contributes the chapter on financial remedies to Lamont's Family Law (2nd edn Oxford University Press 2022). An associate professor at UEA Law School, Polly is also Director of the multi award-winning UEA Law Clinic. A solicitor and law firm co-founder, she now practises exclusively in the free family law advice clinic of Norfolk Community Law Service. She is a Transparency Project committee member, former Chair of collaborative pod Good Divorce Group Norfolk, and a former committee member of the Norfolk & Norwich Law Society and Norfolk Resolution.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2022/B9.html

HHJ Hess. Financial remedy proceedings in which parties’ respective parents had provided them with funds to enhance their lifestyle, which court held to be soft loans rather than gifts. Discussion of importance of determining whether hard/soft; gives some guidance on indicators of each (para [19]). Soft loan repaid purely to defeat W’s claim was counted back into H’s assets. Significant risks attaching to shares in company for which H was UK CEO, but H chose to take on risk and did not pursue more copper-bottomed assets. Held, H was in a position to assess that risk notwithstanding that he ‘could turn out to be another Mr Myerson’ (paras [40]--[42]).