35 In Cameron v. Cameron this payment was considered on the same basis as holiday pay and was treated as if it were a family asset. In that case the husband and wife had married in 1964 and so the leave had been forgone and the benefit acquired when the parties were cohabiting as a married couple. In this case the marriage was long after the benefit was acquired and the wife had not forgone any of the advantages of the leave when it was due. I find those facts distinguish this case from Cameron v. Cameron and I find this is not a family asset. Forces Reduction Plan:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.