Introduction

Shula Biros and her husband married on 5th July 2005 at Marylebone they used to live in a flat which was bought by Shula couple of years before. Now the couple are living in the property which is 4 bedroom house which was of euro 250,000. As this property was bought by both husband and wife as 120,000 euro has been submitted by deposits and 100,000 was from the savings and 20,000 was from the profits which Shula Biros has made it from the flat she owned. Shula’s parents also contributed 10,000 euro for the purchase of the flat. Jeff has contributed the sum of 80,000 after receiving the money of inheritance. They also took 130,000 mortgage with Hatfield Building Society. The couple had three sons named Miles, born on 23rd October 2009 and twins Lewis and Ronan born on 1st March 2014. Miles is in Year 8 at a secondary school in St Albans, a couple of miles from the family home and Lewis and Ronan are at the local primary school close by. Shula wants divorce from her husband and has approached us for seeking the advice on the financial matter. The main ground for divorce that has been seeked by the Shula Biros is that Jeff Biros her husband has been more controlling over the years. In terms of money and always scrutinizing the bank accounts and her expenditure and questioning her for buying anything for herself and for her children. Shula also stated that she has been diagnosed with MS couple of years ago and this was a very huge shock for her. Due to her disease she has been taking a lot of medication. The client has also stated that she has also not got any support from her husband and due to which she is seeking divorce from her husband. Further it has also stated by Shula that she has been made as a burden on her husband by the behavior of her husband.

Shula is presently working with the bank at local high street in St Albans where she used to go for 3 days from 9am to 3 pm. This supports her for herself and to expend for her children also. Earlier she was working with HSBC in Canary Wharf on a management scheme and was earning good but when she had children her husband stated that she should leave the job and look after her family and house. As Jeff has got big promotion as now they are advertising director of the same company. Jeff is earning around 100,000 euro also taking the3 annual income home and his net income is around 5,200 euros per month. After she had twins she returned to work for the part-time. When Shula explained her husband that she wanted divorce and wanted the children also to live with her. She further stated that Jeff could see the children whenever he wanted to meet them. Shula also wanted to stay in their family home. Jeff stated that if she wanted to stay in the family home then she has to join the full-time job and also to take all responsibility for the maintaining the children and pay the mortgage. He further, demanded his share of house and his amount of inheritance which he paid. She is now worried as she stated that her husband is money minded and would raise the dispute regarding the money as he is obsessed with money. Along with this she is also worried for the disease MS she is diagnosed with that what impact would it made on her future work and economic conditions. Due to which she has approached us and wanted advice over the financial provisions as per the law.

Clean Break Order

As here the court has also stated that equal distribution should be made of the property as each party would be getting their own share as divided half of the property. This has also been stated in a similar case of Miller, Mc Farlane [2006].as here in the present case the property which was bought together at Hatfield Building Society for 130,000 Euros. Here also the equal share should be divided but then the mortgage which Jeff is asking Shula to pay should also be divided. As the principle of equity stated that the children’s need should also be entertained and due to which the parent who is having the responsibility of children should get more share.  As there are three elements of the principle of equity which are financial needs of the party, compensation, Compensation for economic disadvantage caused by the way the  parties conducted their marriage, for example where the wife has  given up a career to look after the children and sharing – i.e. the principle set out in White.

Income Order

Section 25 of Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 which stated that the court should deal with the criteria which has been mentioned while dealing with the case of application of financial relief. As here in the case of Cordle v Cordle [2002] where it has been considered that the first priority is of mother in the housing and also the house is the primary need for the children. Also while the court orders there are certain factor that needs to be considered are income and resources, needs, standard of living, age and duration of marriage, disability, contributions, conduct and loss of a benefit. As here in the present case the Shula is working part-time and her income is not sufficient to maintain the children and the responsibility of home itself. As in the case of Juffali v Juffali [2016] where the court has stated that the here the judge would be providing the decision based on the needs of the children and the standard of living, available resources. As here in the present case Jeff has ample resources which would be able to maintain the children but here the wife Shula need more money to take the responsibility of their children and as she is also suffering from the disease so the expenses are more. As in the case of White v White [2001] where it has been stated that the assets should be shared as marriage is the partnership of equals. Here also the discrimination principle was also introduced.