Family Law Hub

Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315

Judgment, published: 17/09/2011

Items referring to this

  • Judgment, 17/09/2012, free
  • Case note, 17/09/2012, free
  • Mr Justice Mostyn rules that orders preventing the reporting of financial information that is not already in the public domain should continue. Judgment, 29/09/2015, free
  • The applicant was applying for access to court documents relating to the respondent's divorce, in particular details of false evidence in the respondent's Form E, later corrected, about a contingency agreement under which the CEO of the respondent's company was to receive a financial settlement. The application came about because the CEO was pursuing a claim of wrongful dismissal against the respondent company. The judge agreed for some information to be redacted but otherwise allowed the applicant access to the documents. Judgment, 18/12/2015, free
  • Public interest in exposing attempts to mislead the court in FR proceedings. Case note, 20/01/2016, members only
  • Wife's application that judgments in these financial remedy proceedings, where the husband had been found to have defrauded her parents, should be published un-anonymised. The application was granted. Judgment, 16/03/2018, free
  • Husband was asking for an adjournment of this "extremely simple [financial remedy] case" which was refused. Mr Justice Mostyn explains his reasoning for anonymisation of financial remedy cases and ordered that the media should not identify the parties. Judgment, 16/09/2015, free
  • Applications, in financial remedy proceedings, to exclude media from future hearings and for a reporting restriction order. Cobb J concluded that accredited media could attend private hearings but placed restrictions on disclosed financial information and the children's names. Judgment, 11/04/2017, free
  • High Court prevents W from making public bare terms of her open financial offer to H Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • Parties had reached agreement that the wife be paid a lump sum of £300,000. The issue here was whether the details of the settlement could be made public and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs relating to a Dean summons which was brought by her solicitors but then abandoned after the husband relented on the publicity issue. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • In a tweet: Consent order approved providing W with a lump sum of £300K on a clean break basis Case note, 20/09/2016, members only
  • Application for a reporting restriction order on the previous financial remedy proceedings. A reporting restriction order was made preventing the publication of any information relating to the proceedings save for the judgment. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • In these Schedule 1 proceedings, mother wanted to be able to disclose to the Police and/or to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA] the fact that the father lied in statements and on oath in these proceedings. The father worked in the financial services sector and his lies consisted of his initially not disclosing within the proceedings the fact that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received a sum of £111,000. The judge had to weigh up the rights and interests of the parties between themselves against the public interest and ruled that the injunction, which prohibited disclosure of the proceedings to third parties without the permission of the court, was upheld. The mother also lost her application to have this judgment published in a non-anonymised form. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free

Published: 17/09/2011


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