2/27/2019
START DATE
END DATE
5/4/2019
W.O. v. S.O.
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
Divorce Law
Registrar Alexandra Wheatley
Adam Richard of Marshall Diel & Myers Limited
The Respondent In Person Failed to appear
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a divorce proceeding where the petitioner sought ancillary relief for children's periodical payments a lump sum property adjustment and further relief. The respondent failed to comply with court orders and did not present any affidavit evidence leading to a hearing in his absence. The financial positions of both parties were considered with the petitioner presenting a clear picture of both parties' financial circumstances and seeking the majority of matrimonial assets based on their needs and the respondent's unpredictable income.
SUMMARY:
The issues revolve around the distribution of matrimonial assets and the respondent's failure to contribute to the family's expenses after vacating the former matrimonial home.
OUTCOMES:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner allowing her to retain the majority of matrimonial assets and requiring the respondent to pay for half of the children s private tuition fees and continue their major medical insurance coverage. The respondent was also ordered to pay a lump sum for previous unpaid expenses.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Plaintiff/Claimant
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
W.O. v. S.O.
The case involves a divorce proceeding where the petitioner sought ancillary relief for children's periodical payments a lump sum property adjustment and further relief. The respondent failed to comply with court orders and did not present any affidavit evidence leading to a hearing in his absence. The financial positions of both parties were considered with the petitioner presenting a clear picture of both parties' financial circumstances and seeking the majority of matrimonial assets based on their needs and the respondent's unpredictable income.