- Everything (198)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (2)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (1)
- Case note (52)
- News (12)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (4)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (15)
- Judgment (82)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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
- A freezing order on a property was due to be reconsidered. It had been made in favour of Mrs Chaudhri following default in the payment of a lump sum. Mostyn J found that the applicant had twice failed to pursue her claim in relation to the property, and it would be a manifest abuse were a claim now to be allowed to be mounted and protected by a freezing injunction. The freezing order on the property was discharged, but the worldwide freezing order made earlier would remain in force and be transferred to the Family Court. Any further applications for freezing relief should be made to the same Family Court and heard only at High Court judge level. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
- The mother took the children to Ukraine on an agreed holiday and did not return them. The father sought an order that would permit certain information about the case to be publicised. Mostyn J decided that the mother, her new husband and her father (a former Vice-President of Ukraine) could be named and their photographs published. Judgment, 23/04/2019, free
- Powers made under the 2008 Act News, 29/11/2018, free
- The court found that the sister of the husband and the company which she controlled were in contempt for failing to comply with an order for disclosure. Judgment, 02/11/2018, free
- In force from 19 October News, 22/10/2018, free
- In brief: A successful application by a wife (“W”) for a judgment summons against her ex-husband (“H”). Having failed to pay the spousal maintenance ordered, arrears of £55,000 had accrued (by the time of the hearing, they had risen to £87,000). The court was satisfied that H has, or had had, the means to pay the maintenance but had instead prioritised other expenditure (including over £72,000 on two weddings to his new wife) and in doing so had deliberately and wilfully refused or neglected to pay the sum owed to W. Judgment, 02/10/2018, free