Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
A rare order for a child in utero
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn 2023, Kettering NHS Trust applied for an anticipatory declaration for a child...
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
Now is the time to reassess presumption f parental involvement in cases involving domestic abuse
Lea Levine, Paralegal at Stewarts and former independent domestic violence advisorIn this article, paralegal and former independent domestic violence advisor (“IDVA”) Lea Levine...
Hadkinson orders – applicability in financial remedy proceedings
Hassan Sarwar, Cornwall Street BarristersHassan Sarwar considers the development and usage of Hadkinson Orders in financial remedy proceedings.  The article provides a helpful overview of a...
View all articles
Authors

Shadow directors beware: applying Prest in M v M

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Title : Shadow directors beware: applying Prest in M v M
Slug : shadow-directors-beware-applying-prest-in-m-v-m
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : 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