Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Re Ali [2012] EWHC 2302 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:22 PM
Slug : 2012ewhc2302admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 21, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 99773

(Queen's Bench Division, Dobbs J, 18 July 2012)

The husband was convicted of money laundering and made subject to a confiscation order of £756,000. When he failed to pay, enforcement proceedings were undertaken and it was discovered that the husband had realisable assets consisting of five properties.

Third party claims were made by six parties including the wife. The receiver rejected all claims except to hold that the wife held a 50% share in one property by virtue of the title being in joint names.

The claimants' appeal was dismissed. The claimants had not given credible evidence and their accounts were inconsistent. In line with the principles of Jones v Kernott there was insufficient evidence of an agreement that the claimants would have a beneficial interest in the properties.

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