Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2012] EWHC 4277 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:07 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-tchenguiz-imerman-v-imerman-2012-ewhc-4277-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 3, 2013, 09:04 AM
Article ID : 102791

(Family Division, Moylan J, 20 June 2012)

The husband and wife were engaged in heavily contested financial remedy proceedings. They were married for 7 years and had a 10-year-old child together while the husband had three adult children from a previous marriage.

The wife put forward her case on the basis of the sharing principle in respect of matrimonial assets including the proceeds of a company acquisition and later sale, which were held in a trust structure. The beneficiaries under these trusts were the husband's parents, all four children and the one grandchild. The assets held by the discretionary trusts now totalled £130m. The wife applied for a variation of the trusts on the basis that they were post-nuptial settlements.

The trustees, supported by the beneficiaries, applied and were granted approval to not take part in those proceedings by the Royal Court of Jersey and the East Caribbean Supreme Court. The husband's adult children now sought to be joined as parties to the financial proceedings in order to contest the wife's application.

For the purposes of FPR 9.26B it was desirable for the adult beneficiaries to be joined as parties to the proceedings. It would clearly assist with the investigation and resolution of matters and it would be consistent with the overriding objective. From the court's perspective it would have been preferable for the trustees to be joined but as they had declined to participate, to join the beneficiaries was the second best course. 

 

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