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

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