Latest updates
- The substantive final hearing of the former wife's application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for financial relief. The wife and two children lived in England and had dual Russian and British citizenship. The husband was Russian, had kept a second family in Moscow, and had obtained a Russian divorce without the wife's knowledge. He had not participated in these proceedings. He had made no disclosure and had not paid a penny following an interim order for maintenance and legal costs funding. Holman J ordered the husband to pay or cause to be paid a lump sum to the wife of £2,250,000, and to pay her costs on the indemnity basis. Judgment, 11/03/2020, free
- Leave to apply for financial relief had been granted to the wife at an ex parte hearing under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to set it aside. The parties lived only in Russia throughout the marriage, and had become very wealthy during the 1990s. There had been a blizzard of litigation since the divorce. The husband alleged that Cohen J had been materially misled by the wife's representatives when making the order. Cohen J regretted having been persuaded to hear the application without notice, and decided that the grant of leave was indeed given as a result of the court being misled, . The leave to apply for financial relief was set aside. The wife's application was considered afresh and dismissed. Her case was not appropriate for determination in England and Wales. Judgment, 12/11/2019, free
- The father lived in Oman, the children and mother in England. The father was in breach of orders made in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 proceedings. The mother applied for a child arrangements order to the effect that the children live with her. The court in Oman had ordered that custody of the children should be removed from the mother, despite the father having previously undertaken not to issue proceedings in Oman. Holman J was in no doubt that it was in the best interests of the children to continue to live in England with their mother. There was no possibility of them visiting Oman, due to the risk of them not being returned. Any contact with the father in England would have to occur while he was sober, and in the presence of a third party to prevent abduction. Judgment, 20/09/2019, free
- The wife made a claim for financial relief after a divorce in Russia. A claim for £2m was made against her by a company of which the husband had been the sole director. She claimed that this was a sham. The husband did not engage at all with the court during the proceedings, though the company did, and he gave no disclosure of his means. Holman J was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order for financial relief, and that an award of £5m to the wife, leaving at least £17m to the husband, would not do him any injustice. It was less than the wife would have been awarded had all the proceedings taken place in England and Wales. The wife was also entitled to an order for costs against the company and the husband. The judge recognised, however, that enforcement of his orders would be difficult. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
- The wife resided in Tenerife and Russia, the husband in London. Following divorce proceedings in Russia, the wife applied for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales, pursuant to section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Williams J held that her claim could not be characterised as wholly unmeritorious, and leave was granted. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: Consideration of “substantial” in leave for Part II MFPA 1984 proceedings. Case note, 18/10/2019, members only
- In brief: Williams J handed down a three month prison sentence (suspended for seven days) to a husband who had failed to file a Form E. Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
- Florence Jones, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, writes a case summary of Vilinova v Vilinov & Anor [2019] EWHC 1107 (Fam). Case note, 31/05/2019, members only
- A case summary of Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam), by a Pupil at 1 Hare Court. Case note, 10/05/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Part III MFPA 1984 order made reflecting French court's decision that marital wealth is to be shared equally Case note, 02/02/2017, members only
Latest training
- In this recorded webcast, Tim Scott QC from 29 Bedford Row summarises the main issues when dealing with cases involving financial claims in England following an overseas divorce. Webcast, 15/06/2015, members only
Latest sources
- Form (external), 01/04/2011, free
- Form (external), 01/04/2011, free