Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDY: Kremen v Agrest [2012] EWHC 45 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:26 PM
Slug : 2012EWHC45
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 3, 2012, 11:07 AM
Article ID : 97811

(Family Division; Mostyn J; 19 January 2012)

The Russian husband and wife had three children and were married for 16 years. The two younger children were privately educated, funded by monies held by the court because the husband had failed to comply with an interim court order for maintenance including school fees.  The wife was currently living in a two bedroom flat following the repossession proceedings in respect of the matrimonial home.

The wife claimed the husband was worth at least £100m, the husband claimed he was destitute and only earned £150 per month in Russia. There were a number of findings that the husband was a serial non-discloser and determined to 'do his wife down by foul means'. The husband's business activity painted a picture of a man of considerable means extending to tens of millions of pounds. His recent business activity was way beyond that of a passive business investor as he asserted and an assessment valued his current wealth at £20-30m .

A post-nuptial agreement made in 2001 was highly disadvantageous to the wife and provided for $1.5m for her upon divorce, she did not receive any independent legal advice nor did she fully appreciate the rights she was foregoing by entering the agreement. There was no prior disclosure by the husband as to the extent of his wealth and the husband has failed to comply with the agreement by not paying anything for the children.  

No weight to be given to the post-nuptial agreement. On a needs basis the wife required £8.3m including £2m for housing, on a sharing basis £12.5m, inclusive of the need component.

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