(2/2) Evading Enforcement: Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Others [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam) and [2020] EWHC 2257 (Fam)

17th September 2020

This article follows last week’s summary, and will cover the remaining two applications that were before Gwynneth Knowles J in Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Others [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam). It will also summarise an application made by W for a variation of freezing orders made against H, which came under a different judgment (Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Others [2020] EWHC 2257 (Fam)).

Our e-books can be accessed offline too

26th August 2020

Earlier this year we launched our bespoke e-reader, a place for our three popular family law titles to be accessed digitally, reducing the need to carry around a pile of heavy books.  

The e-reader is web based, which means you access it through your internet browser. But, did you know you can access the e-books offline too? 

The way to do this depends on the type of device and internet browser you are using. 

Below are steps on how to install the e-reader app and access it offline for when you are out and about or in court with no access to the internet. 

When has a cherry been relevantly placed before the court? AG v VD [2020] EWHC 1847 (Fam)

23rd July 2020

AG (“W”) and VD (“H”) had married in 2010 in Russia. W was born in Russia, and H in Ukraine. After separation, the date of which was the subject of some confusion, H petitioned for divorce in Russia in 2017. Although W had filed a divorce petition in England, she had not yet served it on H by this time. A decree of divorce was pronounced in Russia in 2018, at which point W withdrew her petition in England. However, in 2019 W then issued an application for financial remedy orders under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This hearing concerned a summons issued by H, who sought an order that W produce the files of her previous legal advisors. 

Henrietta Boyle, Pupil at One Hare Court

Valuing businesses: just a “pile of cash”? G v T [2020] EWHC 1613 (Fam)

3rd July 2020

The husband (“H”, 45) and the wife (“W”, 45) were married for 17 years, and had two daughters aged 8 and 3. W had worked in the financial sector, but left formal employment following the birth of the parties’ first child in 2012. H was one of the founder members and the single largest shareholder (holding about one third of the total shares) in a business called B Ltd. The value of H’s interest in B Ltd formed the main issue in the case. 

Henrietta Boyle, Pupil at One Hare Court

Iceberg ahead! Freezing orders over ships: Crowther v Crowther & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 762

25th June 2020

The parties owned and ran a shipping business together. In the course of the financial remedy proceedings, the wife claimed that she and the husband were entitled to the beneficial interest in various vessels which the parties had transferred the legal ownership of during the marriage. The wife sought to continue a freezing order previously granted by Lieven J preventing the second to sixth respondents from disposing of or charging the vessels until the issue as to the beneficial ownership of the vessels could be determined.

Henrietta Boyle, Pupil, One Hare Court

Pensions in needs-based cases: KM v CV [2020] EWFC B22 and RH v SV [2020] EWFC B23

18th June 2020

Two decisions concerning the division of pensions in needs-based cases by HHJ Robinson, sitting in the Medway Family Court, were recently published on BAILII. They are KM v CV [2020] EWFC B22 and RH v SV [2020] EWFC B23. Along with HHJ Hess’ recent judgment in W v H (divorce: financial remedies) [2020] EWFC B10 (case summary here), it provides further useful guidance on how judges and practitioners dealing with smaller needs-based cases should approach pensions. 

 Henrietta Boyle, Pupil, 1 Hare Court

How to lose £86 million in 13 years: AW v AH & Ors [2020] EWFC 22

4th June 2020

by Henrietta Boyle, Pupil, One Hare Court

In 1998, early on in the parties’ relationship, the husband had sold shares in a business he had built up for £86 million. By July 2011, he had been declared bankrupt. At the time of this hearing there were still no visible liquid resources to meet the parties’ housing and income needs. Roberts J therefore adjourned the wife’s claims for a lump sum and property adjustment, and made a nominal periodical payments order. 

Socialist, Chinese, or Liberal? An Introduction to Chinese family law – Part 2: Socialist Influences

23rd April 2020

by Nicholas Marsh, Pupil Barrister, 1 Hare Court

This is the second in a series of 3 articles assessing the socialist and traditional Chinese influences on the family law of modern China. Last week we introduced the family law of traditional China. This week we will introduce some key features of socialist family law and thereby set out the benchmark against which the socialist characteristics can be judged.

Socialist, Chinese, or Liberal? An Introduction to Chinese family law – Part 1: Traditional China

16th April 2020

Nicholas Marsh, Pupil Barrister, 1 Hare Court

The phrase, “socialist with Chinese characteristics” is often used to describe the legal, economic and political framework of the modern People’s Republic of China. Indeed, it has been used by commentators, analysts, and Chinese Communist Party officials alike. It is certainly superficially attractive but does it describe modern Chinese family law? That is the question that will be explored in this 3-part introduction to Chinese family law.

BC v BG [2019] EWFC 7, re-opening an arbitration award: can the court interfere?

28th March 2019

Florence Jones, Pupil, 1 Hare Court

The wife sought to challenge an arbitration award which determined the husband's claim for financial remedy. The Judge, Deputy High Court Judge Clare Ambrose, in refusing the application, reviews the law in this area. She explains the role of the family court in re-visiting an arbitration award, and confirms the importance of the parties’ agreement and the limit on the court’s obligation to “play detective”.