Family Law Hub

Maughan v Wilmot [2020] EWHC 885 (Fam)

Investigations revealed that the husband had misled the court about the true scale of his unencumbered liquid funds, meaning that the factual footings of a previous judgment were faulty. A new hearing was conducted on Zoom. Mostyn J revised the freezing order, to a total sum of £200,000, and made further costs orders against the husband. A late challenge to the quantum of those costs was rejected. The costs would be assessed on the indemnity basis due to the husband's misconduct.

Judgment, published: 16/04/2020


Published: 16/04/2020


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item