A recent judgement in a family law case could prove to be a benchmark in future cases, allowing as it does for the termination of the Community of Acquests prior to the conclusion of cases within the Family Court.

This judgement was based on a new provision introduced concurrently with separation legislation. It allows parties who are involved in a long-drawn-out separation case to request that the Community of Acquests be terminated immediately.

This will not, however, affect what parties may hold in common between them prior to the judgement, which will still need to be fought over in court. The Community of Acquests essentially involves all property and income brought in by the couple since marriage to be administered by both spouses.

Over the past few years, couples who have initiated separation proceedings have still been required to divide their property equally between them following a separation judgement, including property acquired and income earned whilst the court proceedings were in progress. Certain family court cases have taken years to conclude, which is where this judgement can help estranged couples.

The case involving Dr Ramona Frendo, who appeared for the wife, and Dr Stephen Thake, who appeared for the husband, saw the Court of Appeal uphold the claim that a spouse can request the termination of the Community of Acquests at any stage of separation or divorce proceedings, provided that this would not cause a disproportionate prejudice to the other spouse.

In this particular case, the Court heard that the wife was a shareholder in a company, together with third parties. The company was non-operational and in a state of bankruptcy. The husband had left his job within weeks of the filing of separation proceedings and it was the wife who negotiated with the bank for the repayment on the company and home loans.

The Court of Appeal rejected the husband’s argument that the consistency of the Community of Acquests had not yet been established, as the husband could have protected his claims by seeking precautionary measures if he had so wished. The husband also contended that his wife’s income from the company was their main source of livelihood. However, the Court noted that the wife’s shareholding in the company was her property and that, given the financial state of the company, the termination of the Community of Acquests would not put the husband at an economic disadvantage. The husband had chosen to leave his job as a financial manager and had not proved his claim of psychological distress. On the contrary, he was certainly qualified to work without having to rely on his wife’s income. The wife, for her part, had a reasonable fear that her husband would increase their debts without her consent. The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.