A wife was awarded a share of her husband's profits from an investment fund. Later, some investments moved to a new fund. The wife wanted a share of the new fund's profits, but the judge said the original agreement only covered the old fund's profits, which the husband had already shared. So, the wife's claim failed.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between H and W concluded with a final order by Mostyn J in A v M [2021] EWFC 89.
- •The order awarded W percentages of H's receipts from two funds (Fund I and Fund II), with W's potential interest in Fund II rolled into the Fund I award.
- •Fund I investments were subsequently sold, partially or wholly. A remaining portion of the investments was transferred to a continuation fund (CF).
- •W argued she should share in H's co-investment and carry in the CF, while H argued the order mandated payment of percentages of proceeds from Fund I only.
- •H admitted to breaching disclosure obligations under the order.
Legal Principles
Court orders should be construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning, within their context and historical context, and with regard to the order's object. The judge's reasons for making the order are admissible for construction purposes.
Barnard v Brandon [2023] EWHC 3043 (CH) and Banca Generali SPA v CFE (Suisse) SA [2023] EWHC 323 (Ch)
Outcomes
W's application was dismissed.
The court found the order to be clear: H was obligated to pay W percentages of the proceeds he received from Fund I, which he had done. The transfer of assets to the CF was not foreseen in the original order, and the court declined to interpret the order to include participation in the CF.