Latest updates
- The parties had been married and had a ten-year-old daughter. The proceedings had been protracted and involved substantial costs. The judge had made an income clean break order. The husband had applied to enforce the outstanding payment of the lump sum. The wife now applied to set the order aside, make a new order or vary its terms insofar as it dismissed income claims and required payment of a lump sum. She argued that where there was an executory order which had not been fully implemented, and the current circumstances were inequitable, the original order should be set aside and everything opened up again. She placed specific reliance on Thwaite [1981] 2 All ER 789. DDJ David Hodson dismissed her application, apart from as to the date of payment. He was satisfied that the appropriate test was either "significant change of circumstances or quasi-Barder" and in his view none of the reasons given in this case came remotely close. Judgment, 21/08/2020, free
- An application by the wife to vary and extend the freezing orders granted against the first respondent in 2016, to cover all of his assets. They had been granted because of a real risk that the judgment – that the husband should pay the wife £453,576,152 by way of financial remedy consequent upon the breakdown of their marriage – would otherwise have gone unsatisfied. Knowles J had no hesitation in concluding that there was a real risk that the judgments and orders in the wife's favour would go unsatisfied if the relief were not granted. The husband's complex web of illicit transactions had expanded beyond the perceived scope of the original freezing orders, with the result that he and third parties had felt able to ignore the court's orders with impunity. Judgment, 21/08/2020, free
- The couple had been separated since 2012 and divorced since 2014. They had two children, aged 13 and 15. The husband was in very substantial breach of his financial obligations under a previous order, to the extent of £2.6m. The husband claimed that he was insolvent and could be made bankrupt by any one of his many creditors. In HHJ Hess's view, the husband was asking her to re-open the overall quantum of a lump sum by instalments which had been part of a consent order which had been intended to be a final package. Since he was a substantial cause of his own problems, she could not regard those problems as rendering it unjust to hold him to the original order. Despite his current difficulties, the order would not be discharged by bankruptcy proceedings or by time limitation, so the former wife might one day be able to enforce it. The capital order was varied to adopt a new, agreed figure, and the child periodical payments order was varied in accordance with an agreement reached between the parties. Judgment, 08/08/2020, free
- In proceedings for the enforcement of an ancillary relief award, the wife had made an application for disclosure by the tenth respondent, her son, to whom she claimed monetary assets had been transferred by the husband, and the son had applied for disclosure of her funding arrangements and various documents upon which she relied. Knowles J concluded that the son's counterclaim should be struck out. He had no entitlement to seek any relief in respect of the wife's funding arrangements and had failed to demonstrate that there were legally recognisable grounds for challenging their legality. It was decided that the son should disclose documents containing receipts of $100,000 or more, and various other requests were also to be answered. As to the son's application for disclosure, it did not breach Article 6 for the wife to hold on to irrelevant documents. The son had no need to see documents which the wife's solicitors were satisfied did not contain any personal or financial information relating to him. The son also made an application, unsupported by any witness statement, for a reporting restriction order, with the goal of preventing his personal finances from being made public. The case had generated a good deal of media interest. Knowles J decided that the draft order as it stood would inhibit responsible reporting of the proceedings, but he was persuaded that there should be an order to prevent the son's address and other personal information being included in reports. Judgment, 13/06/2020, free
- The children had repeatedly told their guardian, and through her the court, that they wanted to continue living with their mother in England. The Spanish court had ordered that they live with their father in Spain. Russell J DBE found that on any objective and neutral analysis both children were habitually resident in England. They were settled here and were fully integrated into their schools and social environment. There was no significant evidence contrary to such a finding, and jurisdiction was with and in this court. The mother's appeal against enforcement of the Spanish order was allowed. The children would live with her, and would have contact with the father, subject to him providing written permission for the renewal of the children's passports, and documentary evidence that the Spanish order had been discharged and all criminal complaints in Spain against the mother had been dropped. Judgment, 06/02/2020, free
Latest know-how
- On 14 August 2020, Gwynneth Knowles J (“the judge”) gave a judgment in the long-running case of Akhmedova v Akhmedov. The scale of the litigation was large and there were 10 respondents to the applications made by Tatiana Akhmedova (“W”), as well as 10 respondents to committal applications made by W. Case note, 10/09/2020, free
- In a tweet: No formal process for applying for permission to enforce arrears that are 12months+ Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Non-payment of legal services payment order is an insurmountable impediment to the course of justice; here, non-payment led to a Hadkinson order preventing H from pursuing an appeal in a forum dispute Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Corporate veil pierced after H conceals assets in various off-shore corporate entities Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Freezing order made in excess of amount owed by respondent Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
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
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free