Does the court look at cryptocurrencies in divorce proceedings?
Cryptocurrency is viewed as an asset in divorce and financial proceedings. At the financial disclosure stage of the divorce process, both parties have a duty to provide full and frank disclosure of their finances. Any cryptocurrencies should be identified at this stage.
Once identified, cryptocurrencies need to be valued. As with any other asset involved in a divorce settlement, such as a house or a business, there must be a figure placed on the cryptocurrency to assist the settlement negotiations.
Unfortunately, cryptocurrencies are inherently difficult to value as their price is highly volatile. As the price of cryptocurrencies can vary wildly within the course of a divorce, although a partner could have built up a substantial crypto fortune when filing for divorce, it may have diminished by the time of settlement and vice versa.
Experts can be instructed to ensure that the valuation used within the divorce settlement negotiations is fair and impartial. This is vital for both sides as an inaccurate valuation will lead to an unfair settlement.
Cryptocurrencies should not be dismissed within settlement negotiations and they are assets of which the Court has the power to transfer ownership in divorce.
Related FAQs
We are quite used to situations where the injured party is unable to speak because they are in ITU or have suffered a brain injury. In a case like this we would speak to the person wishing to represent the injured party and give the relevant advice and information to enable them to begin the claim on the injured persons behalf.
The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:
- The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
- How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
- Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.
The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.
Some of these can be implemented by you, some need agreement or consultation and some depend on the wording of contracts. We’ll explain more in relation to each option.
It is unlikely that an employer can place such a requirement on staff without infringing the employee’s privacy. If the employee is acting in accordance with the rules, limiting their activity would likely be considered unreasonable.
The reaction from NCVO is that this is an important first step. However, it will not stop well run charities from closing and others will look very different in a few months’ time.