Representing husband with controlling interest in family business where the wife made a limited contribution but caused maximum disruption.

ACTING FOR – Applicant husband.

WHICH COURT – Maidstone Family Court.

OUTCOME – In this case the wife had been controlling all of the money running through the company allowing the husband only limited access to funds while drawing a substantial salary on her own part.  This, despite the fact that the husband was generating all the income for the company, and the company was a trading vehicle for him.  The wife resided in the former matrimonial home (a six-bedroom property) while the husband was forced to reside in rented accommodation elsewhere limited to one-bedroom.  It was possible having followed the entire matrimonial finance process to persuade a court that the lion’s share of the finances should be awarded to the husband.

INTERESTING POINTS – This case involved a number of Section 37(freezing) applications in order to protect the husband’s business and matrimonial interests.