Family Law Hub

Enforcement

Latest updates

  • The wife was seeking to enforce a financial order made in her favour. It had been the largest financial order ever made in favour of a wife in the jurisdiction and the husband had not paid a penny of it. She now made this application in respect of documents which had been obtained from a former employee of the husband, who was now assisting in her litigation enforcement efforts. An application for directions pursuant to UL v BK should have been made when the documents were received, but was not. Given that this was a case involving fraud and evasion on the husband's part, Knowles J directed that the wife and her lawyers were entitled to retain and use certain of the documents as if they had been disclosed by the husband, including those that were potentially privileged. Knowles J also gave guidance as to what should be done in similar situations in future. Judgment, 27/11/2019, free
  • The trustees had failed to give disclosure as ordered in Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2019] EWHC 2561 (Fam). The freezing and disclosure orders made then had subsequently been upheld by the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court, and a criminal investigation was taking place in that country with regard to fraudulent bankruptcy, money laundering and thwarting enforcement. Knowles J held that the reasons for granting the freezing orders had been reinforced by subsequent events, and so they would remain in effect. Judgment, 22/10/2019, free
  • The husband had been ordered to pay the wife £453,576,152 and so far had not paid a penny voluntarily. Enforcement had only been possible in respect of a much smaller amount. This without notice application sought orders against two Liechtenstein trustees used by the husband to evade enforcement. Knowles J granted a freezing injunction and made an order for asset disclosure. The de jure directors of the trustees would be named in the penal notice. Judgment, 22/10/2019, free
  • Whether a judge who conducted an FDR appointment in protracted financial remedy proceedings could later hear applications in relation to the substantive order made in those same proceedings. The hearing was well under way when the husband reminded Holman J of the earlier FDR appointment. Both parties urged the judge to waive the rule, making reference to the overriding objective. He held that any waiver would run totally contrary to the absolute prohibition that the rule currently provides, and brought the hearing to a complete halt. It would have to be heard from scratch before another judge. Judgment, 05/08/2019, free
  • A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Tim Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row tries to make sense of what might happen to international family cases after 29th March next year and reviews a few recent key international finance cases. Recorded September 2018. Webcast, 07/10/2018, members only
  • Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
  • Webinar broadcast on 21 January 2014 presented by Amber Sheridan and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row Webcast, 21/01/2014, registration required
  • Get up to date with all the latest changes to the family justice and procedure presented by David Salter of Mills & Reeve. Webcast, 01/06/2012, registration required

Latest sources

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