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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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