Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Everclear Ltd v Agrest and Kremen [2011] EWCA Civ 232

Sep 29, 2018, 18:14 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA232
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 18, 2011, 13:20 PM
Article ID : 94611

(Court of Appeal; Wall P, Sedley and Arden LJJ; 9 March 2011)

The husband and wife divorced in Israel. The wife had been granted leave to apply under Pt III of Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband had become a fugitive from English justice, having persistently and wilfully failed to maintain wife and children. The husband had transferred single share in BVI company to a third party

The applications to set aside transactions as shams or under s23 MFPA 1984 for intention to defeat the wife's claims.  The test for sham is a stiff one. Two of the transactions were set aside under s23, the other as a sham. The Court of Appeal upheld the orders

See also Kremen v Agrest [2011] EWHC 2571 and 3091 (Fam)

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from