Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

G v G [2015] EWHC 1512 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 22:09 PM
Financial Remedies – Appeal – Legal advice privilege – Allegation of non-disclosure
In 2010 a consent order was made in financial remedy proceedings achieving a clean break between the husband and wife.
Slug : g-v-g-2015-ewhc-1512-fam
Meta Title : G v G [2015] EWHC 1512 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Financial Remedies – Appeal – Legal advice privilege – Allegation of non-disclosure
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 10, 2015, 04:54 AM
Article ID : 109545
(Family Division, Roberts J, 24 April 2015)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2016] 1 FLR 1314]

Financial Remedies – Appeal – Legal advice privilege – Allegation of non-disclosure – Evidence that the wife might have been aware of potential non-disclosure 2 years prior to application to appeal out of time

The full judgment is attached below

In 2010 a consent order was made in financial remedy proceedings achieving a clean break between the husband and wife.

In 2014 the wife sought permission to appeal out of time from the consent order alleging material non-disclosure by the husband. She claimed that she had not known that the husband rather than their three children was the primary beneficiary of two family trusts which had recently received payments amounting to £4m. The husband denied the allegations.

The wife issued an application seeking to prevent the husband’s legal team from continuing to act for him and a redaction of part of the husband’s evidence in the proceedings. The material consisted of an email suggesting that the wife was or might have been aware of potential issues of non-disclosure as long ago as 2012 but she failed to take any action for another 2 years. She further sought an injunction to prevent him from relying upon the use in the hearing of that material in respect of which she claimed legal advice privilege.

The husband sought a declaration that the material which the wife sought to exclude was not privileged and could be referred to as evidence in the proceedings.

The wife’s applications were dismissed. As a fact the judge found that there was no privilege attaching to either the email itself or the conversations which informed the content of the email. Even if there were there were no overriding circumstances which would justify the grant of injunctive relief on the basis of confidentiality to restrain the use of the information at the forthcoming hearing.


This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: FD09D05089

Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1512 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 24/04/2015

Before :

MRS JUSTICE ROBERTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

G
Applicant

- and -

G
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Martin Pointer QC and Mr Simon Webster (instructed by Messrs Farrer and Co) for the Applicant

Mr Andrew Green QC, Mr Tom Hickman and Mr Richard Sear (instructed by Messrs Pinsent Masons) for the Respondent

Hearing date: Friday 24th April 2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment



G v G [2015] EWHC 1512 (Fam) 
Categories :
  • Financial Remedies
  • Judgments
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from