9/12/2016
START DATE
END DATE
11/7/2019
[2019] SC (Bda) 79 Div
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
Divorce Ancillary Relief
Hon. Justice Nicole Stoneham
David Kessaram, Sam Riihiluoma (Cox Hallett Wilkinson Limited)
Georgia Marshall (Marshall Diel Myers Limited)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Wife sought ancillary relief following the breakdown of a 22-year marriage. The case involved substantial trust assets, including The A Fund and The X Trust, which held significant real estate and business assets. The Husband argued that the trusts were not nuptial settlements and could not be varied, while the Wife claimed she was entitled to a financial provision from these assets. The Court considered trust law, financial resources, and fairness in post-divorce financial settlements.
SUMMARY:
Whether the trusts were nuptial settlements and if they could be varied to provide for the Wife and child. Whether the Husband had concealed assets
OUTCOMES:
The A Fund was varied to benefit the Wife, but The X Trust remained unchanged.
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
[2019] SC (Bda) 79 Div
The Wife sought ancillary relief following the breakdown of a 22-year marriage. The case involved substantial trust assets, including The A Fund and The X Trust, which held significant real estate and business assets. The Husband argued that the trusts were not nuptial settlements and could not be varied, while the Wife claimed she was entitled to a financial provision from these assets. The Court considered trust law, financial resources, and fairness in post-divorce financial settlements.