Jones v Jones
Where a business was owned before the marriage, the court should exclude from sharing its value at the start of the marriage together with a notional element of passive growth, and share the rest.
Facts
Mr Jones owned a company before his marriage, which grew substantially during the marriage and was later sold for a large sum. When the marriage broke down, the question was how to treat the value of the company. The judge treated a large part of its value as non matrimonial property, because it was owned before the marriage, and awarded Mrs Jones a share of the rest. Mrs Jones appealed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. Wilson LJ said that the court should identify the value of the company at the date of the marriage, together with a notional increase in that value for passive growth during the marriage, and treat that as non matrimonial property. The rest of the value of the company, generated during the marriage, was matrimonial property and should be shared equally. The court also said that it might be fair to treat part of the non matrimonial property as subject to sharing, depending on the circumstances. The approach is often used in cases involving pre marital wealth.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
- Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
