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

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