Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

Akhmedova v Akhmedov: an update

Jun 11, 2020, 17:07 PM
Title : Akhmedova v Akhmedov: an update
Slug :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Jun 11, 2020, 17:06 PM
Article ID :

Since December 2016 the wife has continued to fight for enforcement of her financial order in this long running case. To date, the husband has failed to voluntarily pay any funds to the wife despite being ordered to pay a lump sum of £453,576,152 in settlement of her financial claims.

In an attempt to seize the husband’s assets the wife issued enforcement proceedings in the UK. She subsequently claimed that the Dubai Court had a duty to uphold the UK ruling and seize the husband’s superyacht. The husband’s superyacht was seized in March 2018 whilst the wife’s enforcement proceedings were ongoing. However, the Dubai Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s claim and the court ruled against the freezing order placed on the superyacht by the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) in aid of the English Judgment. The wife also commenced proceedings in the Marshall Islands, where the yacht was registered, in an attempt to re-register it in her own name.

The wife’s most recent step in attempting to recover the funds she is rightfully owed from the husband involves her taking legal action against the parties’ eldest son. The wife claims that their son is ‘heavily involved’ in the husband’s financial affairs and that he is assisting the husband in moving assets, such as the superyacht, beyond her reach. The son disputes these allegations and simply informed the wife that according to the husband, the funds would be available to invest on the financial market. To date, no such funds have been made available.

In a recent hearing before Mrs Justice Knowles in the Family Division of the High Court, the husband was criticised for deliberately seeking to thwart the English Court. Mrs Justice Knowles referred to the husband as ‘…a shadowy figure in this litigation’.

To date, the husband has not yet complied with the 2016 order and appears to maintain his position that the English Court should not have had jurisdiction to make such order.  The wife continues to seek assistance from the English Court to enforce the order; highlighting the difficulties in enforcing a UK order overseas. 

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
  • international divorce
Provider :
Load more comments
Comment by from