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
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
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