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...
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...
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.