In this case Elizabeth Darlington, instructed by Major Family Law, successfully represented the intervenors (the husband’s parents) in defeating a claim made by the wife in respect of two properties owned by them, in the course of financial remedy proceedings.

The applicant wife asserted that a property owned by the intervenors was held by them upon trust for the husband and wife in equal shares. She also asserted that the husband retained an interest in a further property owned by the intervenors and the husband, whereas the intervenors’ case was that they had bought out the husband’s interest in 2005.

The Judge dismissed the wife’s claims in respect of both properties and found for the intervenors and the husband. In so doing, he found that the wife had “minimised the involvement of the intervenors, despite overwhelming evidence in order to claim a 50% share in their property now worth…up to £1.25 million which she occupied, for the most part rent free, for years.

The Judge was critical of the fact that the wife had presented her case in a “nebulous way” and underlined the need for proper pleading in similar sorts of cases, having regard to the guidelines in TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam). He commented that the court found itself in the position of “having to grapple with a case which is something of a moveable feast.”

The Judge considered whether to anonymise the judgment and, having weighed the competing article 8 and article 10 rights in accordance with Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, having regard to the article 8 rights of the children, decided in favour of anonymisation.