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...
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

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