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
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...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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