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

ANCILLARY RELIEF/ FREEZING ORDERS: Hashem v Shayif [2009] EWHC 3462 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : hashem-v-shayif-2009-ewhc-3462-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 22, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87635

(Family Division; Munby LJ sitting as a judge of the Family Division; 22 December 2009)

Following a bigamous marriage being declared void the wife sought ancillary relief. The husband refused to file Form E or otherwise to participate meaningfully in proceedings.

The husband was citizen of and resident in Saudi Arabia but his company, jointly owned by his sons, owned assets in England. The court granted a freezing order and ordered that sums owed to the wife for her successful ancillary relief claim should be paid from sums owed to husband by the company. It was not possible for the court to go further as the husband had insufficient control of company.

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