Skip to main content

property division

Civil and Commercial Code (as amended until Code (No. 18), B.E. 2551 (2008)) Book V, Chapter IV

This Code comprises the main body of laws of Thailand and regulates many aspects of Thai law. Section 1502 states that divorce may be effected only by mutual consent or by judgment of the court. The grounds of action for divorce are set out at Section 1516 and do not discriminate between genders.

Cressy v. Johnson

The proceedings concerned the plaintiff’s entitlement to an interest in seven properties purchased by the defendant in his name during and after their nine-year relationship.  The plaintiff brought a claim under Part 9 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), requesting that the Court adjust the interests in the properties on the basis of her financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship.  While the parties were not married, the court was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, they were in a genuine domestic relationship, considering factors such as their co-ha

Esseku v. Inkoom

Ms. Esseku and Mr. Inkoom had been married for 30 years. The husband claimed to have divorced his wife in 1995 under Muslim tradition and custom. They had one property together, which Mr. Inkoom sold without consulting Ms. Esseku or their five children, all of whom he evicted off the property. The trial court held that the property was a joint property of both parties, and nullified the sale. Examining the evidence, the Superior Court affirmed the holding because Ms. Esseku had made a “substantial contribution” to the property by building an additional two bedrooms to the house.

Joan v. Hodgson

The defendant alleged that he was induced to make and execute an agreement to pay the plaintiff various amounts following the breakdown of their 10-year relationship, including: payment of US $50,000 (with US $30,000 to be paid initially followed by the remainder; this was subsequently amended to US $60,000), payment of the plaintiff’s rental and medical expenses for 12 months, the purchase of furniture and a computer, and the provision of financial support to the plaintiff’s daughter who was studying.

Lesia v. Lesia

Mrs. Lesia filed an application for relief against her husband, alleging that he abandoned his family, abused her, and was attempting to sell their home without her consent. She alleged that she built and paid for the home, and so sought to have her husband enjoined from selling it. The court issued an interim order granting the requested relief. The defendant disregarded the court order, continued his efforts to sell the home, and threatened to kill Mrs.

Ponde v. Bwalya

The petitioner and the respondent were divorced in the local court where the petitioner was granted custody of the couple’s three children, with the respondent retaining rights of access. The couple were also ordered to share their household goods equally.

Sande v. Sande

The petitioner sought a divorce from her husband under common law rather than Islamic rite. After several years of marriage, (i) the petitioner discovered that the respondent had lied about being divorced prior to their marriage, (ii) the respondent stopped supporting her financially, and (iii) the respondent neglected their relationship.

T. (D.) v T. (C.)

In this case, the Supreme Court articulated its view of the nature of marriage and how the value of the contributions of the spouses should relate to property entitlements under Irish law. Referencing the Family Law (Divorcer) Act 1996, the Supreme Court noted that the legislature had not made any mandatory requirements regarding the division of assets in divorce and judicial separation cases; discretion had been left to the court to consider what would be the best and most just resolution of the case at hand.

Vaux v. Vaux

The petitioner-wife sought dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of abuse by the respondent-husband, who repeatedly physically abused her and threatened her with physical force when she tried to stop him from drinking.

Сімейний кодекс України № 2947-III 2002, Статті 57, 59: право дружини та чоловіка на приватну власність (Family Code, arts. 57, 59: right of wife and husband to own individual private property)

Article 57 of the Family Code of Ukraine defines a list of types of property that are not considered joint property of spouses, for example: (i) any property acquired by either spouse before getting married; (ii) any property acquired under a gift agreement or as heritage during the marriage; (iii) any property acquired during marriage with one spouse’s own money; (iv) personal items such as jewelry, even if acquired with money owned jointly by the spouses, etc.

Subscribe to property division