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...
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....
ANCILLARY RELIEF: Everclear Ltd v Agrest and Kremen  EWCA Civ 232
Sep 29, 2018, 18:14 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
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