Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

'Lying around the kitchen' - Imerman 9 years on

Oct 11, 2019, 15:44 PM
This article considers the nature of those obligations as they have been developed through subsequent decisions.
Slug :
Meta Title : 'Lying around the kitchen' - Imerman 9 years on
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 9, 2019, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

Nicholas Allen QC, 29 Bedford Row

The decision in Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2010] 2 FLR 814, CA catapulted the term “Imerman documents” into the everyday vocabulary of the family practitioner. It shifted the baseline and the boundaries of confidence. It changed the way in which we view, treat and advise clients in relation to the obtaining of the other spouse’s confidential documents within financial remedy proceedings. Significantly, it imposed obligations in relation to those documents on both the spouse and the practitioner.

This article considers the nature of those obligations as they have been developed through subsequent decisions. It identifies an important and understated distinction between confidential documents and the confidential information that may be derived from those documents. This information can be keenly remembered by the most determined of divorcing spouses long after the strict obligations to return the documents have been complied with. Behind the Imerman obligations may lie legitimate (if unforeseen) opportunities for a spouse to capitalise on what is remembered in financial remedy proceedings. These opportunities carry risk. But they may also carry reward. This article considers both, and concludes that, even nine years on from the decision in Imerman, much remains untested.



The full article will be published in the October issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.








Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from