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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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

Moutreuil v Andreewitch (Contempt: No 2) [2020] EWHC 1301 (Fam)

Jun 12, 2020, 10:55 AM
Contempt — Freezing order – Rehearing
The Family Division held that the respondent had breached the freezing order by making/procuring the transfers/payments set out in the applicant's notice and that such breaches were deliberate.
Slug :
Meta Title : Moutreuil v Andreewitch (Contempt: No 2) [2020] EWHC 1301 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Contempt — Freezing order – Rehearing
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 11, 2020, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Family Division, Cobb J, 22 May 2020)

Contempt — Freezing order – Rehearing

The Family Division held that the respondent had breached the freezing order by making/procuring the transfers/payments set out in the applicant's notice and that such breaches were deliberate.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.

 


Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1301 (Fam)

Case No: FD19F00024
ZC18P04081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 22/05/2020

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COBB

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

Between:

Magali Moutreuil
Applicant

- and -

Peter Andreewitch
Pier Investments Company Limited
Respondents

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

Moutreuil v Andreewitch (Contempt: No.2)

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

James Weale (instructed by LSGA Solicitors) for the Applicant
Richard Thomas (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for the First Respondent
The Second Respondent was not separately represented

Hearing date: 18 May 2020

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

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COBB

This judgment was delivered in public, albeit remotely.
The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published.

Judgment: Moutreuil v Andreewitch [2020] EWHC 1301 (Fam)

Categories :
  • Contempt of Court
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from