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

Shadow directors beware: applying Prest in M v M

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
The recent decision of the High Court in M v M and Others [2013] EWHC 2534 (Fam), [2014] 1 (forthcoming and reported at [2013] Fam Law 1525) saw the award of £53m to the wife, an award thought to be the highest to date in a contested divorce. The case in
Slug : shadow-directors-beware-applying-prest-in-m-v-m
Meta Title : Shadow directors beware: applying Prest in M v M
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 4, 2013, 10:50 AM
Article ID : 104251

Olivia Buchan, Solicitor, Vardags:

The recent decision of the High Court in M v M and Others [2013] EWHC 2534 (Fam), [2014] 1 (forthcoming and reported at [2013] Fam Law 1525) saw the award of £53m to the wife, an award thought to be the highest to date in a contested divorce.  The case involved assets of over £107m and provides family lawyers with a lengthy and descriptive judgment applying the principles set out in the Supreme Court decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 FLR 732

M v M concerned an order for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 made by the wife following an original petition, unaware that the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction, for divorce in Russia. Throughout the judgment Mrs Justice King was unrestrained in her assessment of the husband's behaviour and character, stating that the case had 'been a fantastic charade with the husband a shady puppet master in the background'.

The issues considered in the M v M judgment include: orders for financial relief under Part III; failure to conduct full and frank disclosure; adverse inferences; assets held under a resulting trust/common intention constructive trusts; and the implied intentions of a shadow director.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2013 issue of Family Law.

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