“A polo playing dotcom tycoon was ordered by a judge to pay his ex-wife half his £14 million fortune after being accused of ‘flagrant, persistent and consistent” attempts to hide his wealth.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd July 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The ex-wife of a business tycoon has returned to the divorce courts to ask for a bigger slice of his fortune after he sold his business for £180 million.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd July 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“He has survived several assassination attempts, false charges of fraud by the Russian authorities and won high-profile libel cases in London courtrooms. But the exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky has been unable to escape the wrath of his second wife, Galina. Today she won a divorce from the businessman in the high court, in a settlement that lawyers believe could be the biggest in British legal history.”
The Guardian, 22nd July 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A tycoon fixer who is fighting a bitter divorce case from his estranged wife over claims that he has hidden his £400m fortune has been declared bankrupt by the taxman.”
The Independent, 23rd April 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349; [2010] WLR (D) 95
“When a judge was determining (i) a husband’s application to terminate a financial obligation to his former wife and (ii) the former wife’s application to capitalise the obligation, and he was comparing the financial needs of the former wife and a present wife, there remained a presumption that on marriage each spouse took the other subject to all existing encumbrances, whether known or not.”
WLR Daily, 12th April 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13; [2010] WLR (D) 71
“An English court considering under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 whether it would be appropriate to make an order for financial relief on the application of a party to a foreign divorce was not required to apply a forum non conveniens test and decide which of two jurisdictions was the appropriate one. The whole basis of Pt III was that it might be appropriate for two jurisdictions to be involved, one for the divorce and the other for ancillary relief.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“London’s reputation as the divorce payout capital of the world was reinforced by the Supreme Court today.”
The Independent, 10th March 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649; [2009] WLR (D) 227
“A judge should give due weight to the marital property regime into which a couple entered so as to legitimately exercise the very wide discretion conferred on judges to achieve fairness between the parties to ancillary relief proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“A husband could not have an order compromising an ancillary relief application rewritten where his wealth had fallen significantly.”
The Times, 6th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Divorced bankers who have had their bonuses cut are trying to wriggle out of millions of pounds worth of maintenance payments they promised to pay their children and former wives. Dozens of ex-husbands in the City are going back to court to ask judges to reduce divorce settlements that were agreed in much rosier economic times.”
The Independent, 26th February 2009
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Akinnoye Agbaje v Akinnoye Agbaje [2009] EWCA Civ 1; [2009] WLR (D) 11
“A careful approach was required where a court was determining whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to grant an applicant leave to apply for financial relief in this jurisdiction following a divorce in an overseas country.”
WLR Daily, 21st January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“A charge on a property which was not in itself a reviewable disposition was not to be set aside as a result of setting aside the transfer of a property by a husband to defeat his wife’s rights, which was a reviewable disposition.”
The Times, 16th January 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Ansari v Ansari (Bank of Scotland plc intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 1456; [2008] WLR (D) 413
“Where a disposition of property made with the intention of reducing financial relief had been followed by further transactions made for valuable consideration and in good faith, the discretion conferred by s 37(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 would not be used to set aside, as a consequence of setting aside the original reviewable disposition under the Act, a charge, not in itself a reviewable disposition which had been granted by the purchaser on the security of the property.”
WLR Daily, 5th January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024