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...
Latest articles
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
View all articles

Amandeep Gill's Analysis of Imerman

Sep 29, 2018, 17:30 PM
The Imerman Effect - A Cheat's Charter?
Slug : amandeep-gill-s-analysis-2
Meta Title : Amandeep Gill's Analysis of Imerman
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 29, 2010, 11:55 AM
Article ID : 91247

The Imerman Effect - A Cheat's Charter?

Amandeep GillThe Court of Appeal this morning delivered judgment in the long awaited case of Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908. In an extensive judgment running into 49 pages the court considered all manner of legal and equitable principles including  breach of confidentiality and copyright, tortious liability, criminal conduct, the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, S25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the European Convention of Human Rights.

In essence the Court held that Hildebrand remains good law in so far as a litigant (usually the wife) who has accessed documentation unlawfully or clandestinely should disclose said documentation promptly when asked by the husband's solicitors or at questionnaire stage in Ancillary Relief proceedings. Hildebrand does not however provide a defence to criminal or otherwise actionable conduct committed by litigants or their representatives who take possession of such documentation. 

The Court considered that the correct course of action would have been for Lisa Imerman to have applied for freezing, search and seize (Mareva and Anton Piller) orders. Lord Neuberger commented that "There is no reason why such orders should not be sought or granted..." He recognised that "Many litigants in all jurisdictions are driven by their greed or other unworthy motives to lie and cheat. The rules and the judges' application of the rules must be robust to prevent such conduct."

All Ancillary Relief practitioners are aware of the several thousands of pounds rapidly incurred in costs when applying for such draconian orders. Practitioners are duty bound to raise the question of costs with clients at the outset of proceedings and advise upon the implications of the cross undertaking as to damages required to be given by the client when pursuing injunctive relief. Cost considerations often prove to be a fatal knock out blow in relation to applying for Mareva and Anton Piller orders at the outset. 

Secondly, in theory it is all well and good for the judiciary to say that the law should be applied robustly to preserve assets and compel disclosure. The reality is however very different. A strict application of the law cannot always guarantee an effective outcome. For example, a Mareva injunction commonly excludes dealing with assets in the ordinary course of business or trade.  Accordingly an allegedly ‘bad' business decision can quite legitimately deplete assets even where a Mareva injunction has been granted. Equally, how can practitioners acting for wives begin to enforce Mareva injunctions when they and their clients are not aware of the full extent of the assets in question.      

Whilst Hildebrand as we knew it, prior to this judgment, was not an ideal solution it was a necessary evil which ensured against "a gross iniquity perpetrated on both the wife and the court" as described by Mostyn J in FZ v SZ & others [2010] EWHC 1630. Without it the Imerman effect will serve as "a cheat's charter" for non-disclosing spouses, as noted in Withers press release today.   

The hope therefore is that the Court of Appeal decision will be appealed. There is no indication as yet from Withers whether Lisa Imerman will do so. This in itself throws another perspective into the mix. 

Marcus Dearle and Withers are named as co-defendants in proceedings, pursued by Marco Pierre White for damages in respect of trespass to goods and conversion. In White v Withers LLP & Dearle [2010] 1 FLR 859 Ward LJ held that the defendants could not rely upon the rule in Hildebrand as a defence to a claim in tort. Will the Imerman effect also be the prompt settlement of the Pierre White case? Watch this space...

Amandeep Gill is a Professional Training PSL at Jordan Publishing. 

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