Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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