In the case of DH v HN [2014] EWHC 3435 (Fam) the husband (unnamed) was ordered to pay \u00a38.49 million to enable the wife to purchase a property. <\/p>\n
The wife in this case applied for what is called an \u2018interlocutory injunction\u2019 to require her husband to pay this sum. An \u2018interlocutory injunction\u2019 is an order made during ongoing court proceedings which requires someone to do or to refrain from doing certain things. <\/p>\n
The parties married in 1997 and the marriage broke down in November 2011. Decree Nisi was pronounced on 20th July 2012 and in April 2013 the wife commenced financial remedy proceedings. The husband and wife were engaged in ongoing financial remedy proceedings and the wife\u2019s claim for an injunction was brought as a civil rather than as a claim in family law proceedings. The wife\u2019s argument was that the payment was enforceable under contract law however the husband disputed this. <\/p>\n
The husband wished to sell the former matrimonial home and the wife agreed, on the basis that he would finance the purchase of a new home for her and the children. It was the wife\u2019s case that in Autumn 2013 the husband informed her that he would fund the purchase of an alternative home for her and the children and indicated how funding would be obtained. The wife made an offer on a property in London worth \u00a316.7million and after discussing with the husband\u2019s solicitors this arrangement offered \u00a316.25 million and this offer was accepted. <\/p>\n
The mortgage was to be guaranteed by the husband but taken out in the wife\u2019s name. The husband\u2019s solicitors were informed that the sum of \u00a38.49 million was required to complete the sale however the husband did not make the payment required due to disagreements during the financial proceedings. The husband tried to argue that the financial settlement and the property agreement were linked and one could not be completed without the other. <\/p>\n
The wife stated that the property agreement was a binding Xydhias agreement. These agreements are agreements reached during the course of proceedings which are still valid despite not yet being complete. Mr Justice Moylan concluded that the agreement made in relation to the property was separate to financial proceedings. He also added: <\/p>\n
\u2018Conversely, if completion takes place, there will be an asset which has been purchased for just under \u00a311 million. It will provide the security which, currently, a property in Central London appears to provide. It is accepted that it is only part of the wife\u2019s claims. I do not see that the husband will suffer any financial prejudice or injustice, at all, if I make the order sought by the wife.\u2019<\/p>\n
Accordingly an order was made for the husband to pay the sum required to complete the purchase, namely \u00a38.49 million plus interest and fees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the case of DH v HN [2014] EWHC 3435 (Fam) the husband (unnamed) was ordered to pay \u00a38.49 million to enable the wife to purchase a property. The wife in this case applied for what is called an \u2018interlocutory injunction\u2019 to require her husband to pay this sum. An \u2018interlocutory injunction\u2019 is an order… Read More »Wife\u2019s application to require husband to pay \u00a38.49m plus interest and fees to enable the completion of a property purchase allowed.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10,175],"tags":[169,42,11,9,19],"class_list":["post-327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-family-law","category-lund-bennett","tag-family-law","tag-family-law-lawyers-altrincham","tag-family-solicitor","tag-lund-bennett","tag-lund-bennett-law"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=327"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":328,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327\/revisions\/328"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lundbennett.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}