Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Bhura v Bhura [2012] EWHC 3633 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:37 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-bhura-v-bhura-2012-ewhc-3633-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 11, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101315

(Family Division, Mostyn J, 17 December 2012)

The British husband and wife were married for 22 years and had two children. Initially they lived in England where they ran a jewellery business before moving to the USA where they opened a business under the same name.

The marriage came to an abrupt end following and argument and thereafter the wife claimed that the husband and his father cleared the jewellery shop of all items. The husband asserted that he sold all the jewellery to friends and associates for a pittance and had no accurate records of the sales. Following the wife's petition for divorce he returned to England and denied to jurisdiction of the Georgia court.

In proceedings in the Georgia court the wife estimated the value of the stock held in the shop was approximately $5m. The judge accepted the wife's assertions and awarded her lump sum alimony of $2m.

Following the judgment the husband had made no attempt to comply with it. He claimed he had no means to pay and was living off State benefits. In relation to a property owned in London he claimed he had transferred 75% of the interest to his parents as a gift and offered to sell the 25% interest in order to pay his debts but had not done so.

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