Family Law Hub

Thomas v Thomas [1995] EWCA Civ 51

Judgment, published: 05/07/1995

Items referring to this

  • Application by a former husband to set aside a consent order on the basis that, at the time of the agreement, his former wife failed to make full and frank disclosure in relation to a company of which she was both a director and shareholder. It was his case that the non-disclosure upon which he relies was a material factor in that he entered into the agreement to compromise his financial claims arising in the divorce proceedings on the basis of incomplete (and, on his case, misleading) information. Cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil considered. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • A complicated financial remedy judgment involving trusts, inherited assets, businesses and non-matrimonial property. Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings tackling the "perennial and intractable problem of the proper weight to give to valuable resources which do not belong to one of the parties to the litigation but to e.g. a parent or family trust". See also AM v SS [2014] EWHC 2887 (Fam) Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • In brief: Finding that the pot of liquid assets totalled £14.9million, that the pot of Russian business assets totalled £5.7million and that the husband (“H”) had not wilfully dissipated assets nor hidden assets, Mr Justice Moor awarded the wife (“W”) £9.6million with the husband (“H”) retaining £12.9million. Wells-sharing of the Russian business assets was considered to be entirely inappropriate, and H keeping the business assets would allow him to be provided with an income and a return of his capital in the long term. His housing needs were also met plus he had monies to clear his significant debts (£2.8million). W took all the non-Russian liquid assets plus received an indemnity in relation to French tax liabilities and £20,000 a year in child maintenance and a school fees/education costs order. Judgment, 22/10/2018, free
  • Appeal by trustees of a settlement that was varied by order of Mostyn J following divorce proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 07/05/2015, free
  • Judgment, 21/11/2011, free
  • During the course of contested financial remedy proceedings adult beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application. Subsequently, an order was made that these beneficiaries, as parties, should disclose copies of documents which had been provided to them for the purposes of an application which had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey by the trustee of some of those trusts. The Royal Court had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure, if they were ordered to do so by this court, but, in doing so, the Royal Court expressed a number of concerns and invited this court not to require such disclosure. The financial remedy proceedings have been resolved by a consent order but Mr Justice Moylan had been requested by the parties to give a judgment dealing with his order for disclosure. In the judgment he also explained his decision to order disclosure given the terms of the Royal Court's judgment. Judgment, 24/11/2013, free
  • A case where the court had to determine whether England or Scotland had jurisdiction in respect of maintenance payments from the H to the W and their daughter. Judgment, 04/04/2016, free
  • Application for financial relief after an overseas divorce brought by a former wife under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Both parties were Russian nationals and it was the respondent's case that the Russian financial remedy order made in 2009 precluded any further claims the wife may have in relation to either spousal maintenance or a variation of any trust or post-nuptial settlement pursuant to section 24(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Mrs Justice Roberts decided that a Part III order would be appropriate, determination of which would be made at a later date. Judgment, 25/04/2016, free

Published: 05/07/1995


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