“A business tycoon who lied about his wealth in a £1.8m divorce settlement has been told he may have to pay more after a judge ruled couples have a duty to tell each other the truth when striking deals.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th August 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“With the legal fees for a ‘simple’ divorce in London now at £2,500, DIY divorce websites are reporting a sharp rise in the number of couples using their services.”
LegalVoice, 19th August 2013
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
“A Russian wife has been awarded one of the highest divorce settlements ever made by an English court after a judge ruled that she should receive more than £53 million from her ex-husband.”
Daily Telegraph, 14th August 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in July.”
Family Law Week, 7th August 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“It might be that the sanction of committal for contempt for ignoring orders of the court in respect of providing proper financial information in divorce proceedings may be more likely than before – partly in view of the new climate intended to be fostered by the ‘Jackson’ reforms.”
Sovereign Chambers, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“A high court judge has said a couple have committed ‘financial suicide’ by spending £850,000 on legal bills during their divorce.”
The Guardian, 25th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Andrzej Bojarski of 36 Bedford Row examines the law and the latest guidance relating to self help disclosure.”
Family Law Week, 18th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Freezing orders, without notice applications and evidence obtained in breach of confidence – a salutary reminder.”
Sovereign Chambers, 25th June 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“Jessica Craigs, solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in June.”
Family Law Week, 8th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Henry Clayton of 4 Paper Buildings outlines the consequences where a party to financial remedy proceedings becomes bankrupt after the making of a final order.”
Family Law Week, 28th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“A wife persuaded a court to freeze £20 million of her husband’s assets using papers she raided from his safe while he was out playing golf, a High Court judge has disclosed.”
Daily Telegraph, 25th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
The Daily Telegraph have recently introduced a limited paywall. Users will be permitted to view 20 Daily Telegraph articles per month for free, after which they will need to pay a subscription fee to access content.
Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237
“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A mother is suing her former solicitor for £15 million, claiming that his poor advice cost her millions of pounds in a divorce settlement.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion’ for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.”
Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 14th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“Divorce cases have prompted the most complaints about lawyers in the last year with individuals being urged to shop around for legal advice.”
BBC News, 13th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th June 2013
“Lord Sumption’s ruling resolves the dilemma of enforcing the law and doing judgment.”
The Guardian, 12th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024