- Everything (174)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (1)
- Case note (64)
- News (4)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (7)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (95)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- A judgment that, Knowles J said, endeavoured to provide a clear context for the claims brought by the former wife against some of the eleven respondents, and to then analyse and determine those claims, having taken account of a mass of documentary and oral evidence. The wife had been the victim of a series of schemes designed to put every penny of the husband’s wealth beyond her reach, a strategy designed to render her powerless by ensuring that, if she did not settle her claim for financial relief following their divorce on the husband’s terms, there would be no assets left for her to enforce against. Knowles J's decision was as follows. To grant relief to the wife against Counselor Trust: (a) as trustee of the Genus Trust, in the sum received from Cotor, the best estimate of which was US$650 million; (b) as trustee of the Arbaj Trust, US$36,624,946, CHF 4,000,000 and £1 million ; (c) as trustee of the Ladybird Trust, US$46,752,468, CHF 1,287,078.50, €76,918 and £128,100; and (d) as trustee of the Carnation Trust, US$455,363,485, and CHF 10,000; with joint and several liability where relevant to avoid double recovery. She granted relief to the wife against Sobaldo Establishment, in its capacity as trustee of the Longlaster Trust, in the sum of US$546,735,165. The relief granted against the eldest son, Temur, was (a) US$67,500,000 in respect of the claim for transfers of the Monetary Assets to him from Cotor in 2015 and 2016; (b) US$31,499,998 in respect of the claim for receipt of Monetary Assets previously held by Counselor Trust and/or Sobaldo Establishment between 2017 and 2019; and (c) RUB 531,560,331 in respect of the claim in respect of a Moscow property. His oral evidence had been preceded by his belated admissions of having significantly breached his disclosure obligations, described by Knowles J as "lamentable litigation conduct". She also granted the wife relief against Borderedge Ltd in the sum of €27,500,021.38. Judgment, 02/05/2021, free
- In the course of consolidated Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 enforcement proceedings and Children Act 1989 section 8 proceedings, the father appealed against an order for financial disclosure with a penal notice, and a costs allowance order in favour of the mother. He also sought to put in evidence of the mother's alleged non-disclosure and drug use. Williams J refused the father's applications to admit fresh evidence, to amend the grounds of appeal, and for disclosure of the means by which the mother's lawyers were funded through the Children Act proceedings. He had not demonstrated a realistic prospect of success in relation to any of them, nor was there any other compelling reason to grant permission to appeal. The mother sought an order for the father to pay her costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the associated applications. Williams J was satisfied that this was an appropriate case in which to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2020, free
- Following a decision that the disclosure of a mother's medical records had been unnecessarily and disproportionately invasive of her right to respect for her private life, HHJ Wildblood QC wished to highlight the extent to which court lists were being filled by interim private law hearings that should not have required court involvement. He gave the example of being asked to decide at which motorway junction the handover of a child for contact should take place. Such micromanagement should only come before a court where it was genuinely necessary, and he warned that where unnecessary cases were brought, criticism and sanctions could follow. He urged parties and their lawyers to explore other ways to settle their disagreements, such as mediation. Judgment, 28/09/2020, free
- Three applications were before the court: the wife's application for disclosure from the eighth and ninth respondents, in support of her claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; an application by five respondents to be released from their obligations under previous orders; and an application by the eighth and ninth respondents for a case management stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings in Liechtenstein. Knowles J found that the orders for disclosure directed at the eighth and ninth respondents were necessary to justly and fairly determine the wife's properly brought claim, even though those orders might be contrary to civil and criminal law in Liechtenstein. The risk of prosecution in Liechtenstein was little more than purely hypothetical. The absence of the material in question would very substantially interfere with the wife's ability to pursue her claim and would hamper the court's ability to determine the proceedings fairly. Knowles J refused the application to set aside and vary the previous orders, and refused the application for a stay of the proceedings. Judgment, 17/08/2020, free
- The mother and the Secretary of State for the Home Department brought appeals against an order for disclosure, in private family proceedings, of redacted copies of certain documents in her asylum file, to the solicitors acting for the father and the son. In Baker LJ's view, it was clear that MacDonald J had correctly identified the applicable principles of law in his first judgment and in the second had applied them in a way which was fully within his discretion and could not be successfully challenged in the Court of Appeal. His conduct of the balancing exercise required had been "unimpeachable". Phillips LJ agreed. In Peter Jackson LJ's view, the answer to questions regarding disclosure in similar cases was "not to be found in legal generalities or contestable adjectives but in a close study of the individual circumstances". The judge had reached a decision after careful consideration. Though Peter Jackson LJ had some hesitancy about the outcome, it was not open to the Court of Appeal to say that the judge's decision had been wrong. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 04/08/2020, free
- The husband sought an order for the wife to produce the files of her previous legal advisors. The husband's case was that she had waived the privilege that would normally attach to communications between a client and her legal advisors on three separate occasions, for example when claiming that they had been "frankly incompetent". Cohen J found that the wife had clearly invited the husband "into the consultation room", in claiming that her instructions had been misconstrued or misquoted or not followed. It would be unfair if the husband could not challenge this statement by reference to contemporaneous notes, emails and other communications. The files would be made available to a QC selected by the parties for sifting and, if required, redacting the necessary material. Judgment, 12/07/2020, 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
- Private law family proceedings between the mother and father were ongoing, regarding the welfare of their eight-year-old son. This hearing concerned the disclosure and inspection of documentation from the mother's successful asylum claim, in which she had alleged domestic and sexual abuse on the part of the father. MacDonald J ordered that several of those documents should be disclosed, with some redaction, as being relevant to its fact-finding process. The father had the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and his Article 8 rights were also engaged. The same was true of the child's Article 6 and 8 rights. It was plainly in the child's best interests for decisions as to his welfare to be taken on a fully informed basis. This required that the court had before it all of the evidence relevant to determining that issue. However, MacDonald J stressed that this decision did not signal any change in the general approach to disclosure into family proceedings of asylum documentation. Rather, this was the application of settled legal principles to the very particular facts of this case. Judgment, 11/05/2020, free
- An application to set aside a final financial remedies order for the second time on the grounds of material non-disclosure. Holman J concluded that the husband's evidence on the crucial issue had been evasive and untrue, and that he had deliberately withheld disclosure, not only from the wife and the court, but also from his own legal team. The wife was entitled to re-open the case. The previous order was set aside and there would be a fresh determination of the wife's claims for financial remedies. Holman J urged the parties to enter serious negotiations and find an early basis for settlement. Judgment, 22/01/2020, free
- Seven summonses were before Cohen J. One was the wife's judgment summons, claiming the husband had not paid the sums due under the order and requesting committal. The husband admitted that he was in arrears, but argued that he was unable to pay. Looking at his expenditure, Cohen J was satisfied that that was not the case, and found him to be in contempt of court. Consideration of what punishment to impose was adjourned to a later hearing, and the husband was directed to file information and evidence regarding the claimed changes in his circumstances. Judgment, 12/11/2019, free