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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
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...
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