Preedy v Preedy

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Zacca, P., Georges and Henry, JJ. A.)
• Judgment Date: 06 April 1988
• Court: Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 06 April 1988

Court of Appeal

(Zacca, P., Georges and Henry, JJ. A.)

PREEDY

and

PREEDY

N.W. Hill, Q.C. and P. Boni for the appellant;

J. Jenkins for the respondent.

Cases cited:

(1) Browne v. Pritchard, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1366; [1975] 3 All E.R. 721, applied.

(2) Pettitt v. Pettitt, [1970] A.C. 777; [1969] 2 All E.R. 385, dicta of Lord Upjohn applied.

(3) Wachtel v. Wachtel, [1973] Fam. 81; [1973] 1 All E.R. 829, considered.

Family Law-divorce-financial provision-capital assets-wife entitled to one-third share as starting point-court may vary size of share even up to half in light of circumstances, e.g. length of marriage and contributions of parties

The respondent wife sought an order in the Grand Court to make financial provision for her after divorce by giving her a share in capital assets of the parties.

Prior to their marriage, the parties had purchased a matrimonial home in their joint names, with the husband paying the major part of the purchase price and the mortgage interest, and the wife contributing some 20%. They lived together in the house for almost five years during which the household expenses were met from a joint bank account to which both spouses contributed. The wife successfully petitioned for divorce and an order was made for, inter alia, the equal division of the proceeds of sale of the house and its contents between the parties.

On appeal, the husband submitted that the court had failed to take proper account of the respective contributions of the parties to the purchase of the home and its contents, had misconceived the principles upon which the property division ought to have been made and had consequently erred in awarding the wife a half share in the proceeds of sale.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) While the marriage subsisted, in the absence of any evidence of a contrary intention, the putting of the title to the matrimonial home in their joint names raised a presumption that the husband was making a gift to the wife of a share in the beneficial ownership. Moreover, her entitlement to a share was reinforced by her direct contribution to the purchase of the home (page 93, lines 24–26; page 95, lines 10–14).

(2) On divorce, the starting point for the division of capital assets between husband and wife was the allocation of one-third of their value to the wife, which would then be varied (in some cases giving her as much as a half share) according to the circumstances of the marriage. In the present case, the wife”s direct financial contributions and her indirect contributions by looking after the home and family, taken together with the length of the marriage, justified fixing her share at 40% of the value of the home and contents, and the Order of the Grand Court would be varied accordingly (page 95, lines 14–24).

ZACCA, P., delivering the judgment of the court: The parties
to this appeal were married on August 24th, 1981. There are no
children of the union. Mrs. Preedy has two children from a pre-
vious marriage. The children lived with Mr. and Mrs. Preedy but
35	they were in part maintained by Mrs. Preedy”s former husband.
On August 6th, 1986 a decree of divorce was granted to Mrs.
Preedy. The marriage lasted some five years.
In the Grand Court, the wife sought an order for a division of
the family”s capital assets in equal shares. The learned Grand
40	Court judge made the following order:
‘ 1. The matrimonial home (Block 5B, Parcel 19, West

Bay South) and all land and fixtures appurtenant thereto to
be sold and the proceeds, after paying all expenses of sale,
advertisement and related expenses, to be shared equally
between the parties.
5	2. All furniture, furnishings (including curtains and car-
pets, and pictures), crockery, cutlery and

...