Family Law Hub

A v A [2007] EWHC 99 (Fam)

Judgment, published: 29/01/2007

Topics

Items referring to this

  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings in very high net worth case involving offshore trusts and international enforcement. The wife was awarded £453m, which represented 41.5% of the assets. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Judgment, 22/03/2013, free
  • The wife sought declarations in relation to 2 properties which she argued were wholly or mainly beneficially owned by the husband, notwithstanding that (i) the legal title to Property 1 was held in the four names of the husband and his family, and there was a signed TR1 declaring that they hold it as tenants in common in equal shares, and (ii) the legal title to Property 2 was in the sole name of the husband's brother. The wife's applications were dismissed. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • Case note, 24/02/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 24/02/2012, free
  • Judgment, 22/09/2008, free
  • Appeal by a solicitor against an order requiring him to give evidence in big money financial remedy proceedings on the grounds that he was protected by legal professional privilege. Appeal dismissed largely because the evidence sought was not about client advice but third party dealings and therefore not privileged. Judgment, 27/02/2018, free
  • Judgment, 28/10/2012, free
  • Appeal against setting aside of order transferring properties to the wife that were legally owned by the former husband's companies. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 12/06/2013, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2011, free
  • During the course of contested financial remedy proceedings adult beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application. Subsequently, an order was made that these beneficiaries, as parties, should disclose copies of documents which had been provided to them for the purposes of an application which had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey by the trustee of some of those trusts. The Royal Court had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure, if they were ordered to do so by this court, but, in doing so, the Royal Court expressed a number of concerns and invited this court not to require such disclosure. The financial remedy proceedings have been resolved by a consent order but Mr Justice Moylan had been requested by the parties to give a judgment dealing with his order for disclosure. In the judgment he also explained his decision to order disclosure given the terms of the Royal Court's judgment. Judgment, 24/11/2013, free
  • In a tweet: A five-day fact finding hearing in financial remedy proceedings was held to determine the husband’s (“H”) (and other third parties’) beneficial interest in 60 international company entities Case note, 22/03/2017, members only
  • Training note, 25/07/2012, members only
  • In a tweet: Article 6 requires trustees to be joined to FR proceedings Case note, 14/09/2016, members only
  • Notes for Christopher Wagstaffe QC's talk presented at the At A Glance Conference 2016 Training note, 23/06/2016, members only
  • Notes to accompany Christopher Wagstaffe's webcast Training note, 07/03/2012, members only
  • An acrimonious financial remedy case in which the liquid assets were worth around £4m but the cost of litigation so far amounted to £1m. The husband was English, the wife Russian and much of the case revolved around the husband's blatant lies about income which he had concealed in a Jersey bank account, and the wife's disposal of a property at an undervalue and other monies which she had spent or dissipated unreasonably. Judgment, 20/03/2014, free

Published: 29/01/2007

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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