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
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...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: M v M (Third Party Subpoena: Financial Conduct) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : m-v-m-third-party-subpoena-financial-conduct-2006-flr-forthcoming
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 31, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89407

(Family Division; Mr Peter Hughes QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge; 31 March 2006)

Although in relation to risky business decisions the wife had to take the rough with the smooth, the husband's gambling and financial conduct in the proceedings, including the flagrant breach of his undertaking not to gamble, and his decision to cease (a) maintaining the wife, (b) meeting the outgoings on the former matrimonial home and (c) paying certain mortgages, notwithstanding the order requiring him to do so, while at the same time paying substantial sums to his mistress, constituted conduct which it would be inequitable to disregard. In dividing the major asset of the parties in the wife's favour, the court was taking that conduct into account. In the course of the proceedings the court had given the wife permission to serve a subpoena duces tecum against the husband's mistress. In doing so the relevant factors included: the importance of the information to the issues; the wife's efforts to take all reasonable steps to elicit the relevant information within the proceedings from the husband, the inadequacy of drawing adverse inferences in this case, the close relationship between the husband and the mistress, and the ability to protect private information by editing of the documents.

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