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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

Judgment out in Young v Young

Sep 29, 2018, 18:53 PM
In summary, the court held that Mr Young had assets of around £45mn in total hidden from the court. Deducting £5m for his debts, the net total was £40m. Mrs Young was found to be entitled to half - a lump sum of £20 million. This also happened to equat
Slug : young-final-judgment-22112013-745
Meta Title : Judgment out in Young v Young
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 22, 2013, 09:14 AM
Article ID : 104159

Mr Justice Moor of the High Court has given judgment in the final hearing of the long running case of Young v Young.  The case, in which Mrs Young claimed that Mr Young had hidden billions of pounds from the court, had hit the news earlier this year when Mr Young was sentenced to 6 months in prison for contempt of court.  In his judgment the judge described the proceedings as about as bad an example of how not to litigate as any he had ever encountered, and both parties were highly criticised.

At the 20-day final hearing in the financial relief proceedings the court heard evidence from 22 witnesses, including Sir Philip Green.  The judge found that Mr Young was dishonest. Along with finding numerous examples of Mr Young's dishonesty the court held that Mr Young had removed share certificates worth approximately £20m from a solicitor's office and then denied they ever existed.

In summary, the court held that Mr Young had assets of around £45m in total hidden from the court. Deducting £5m for his debts, the net total was £40m.

Mrs Young was found to be entitled to half - a lump sum of £20m. This also happened to equate with the court's view of her reasonable needs, generously assessed. The judge ordered Mr Young to pay this sum in 28 days.  The judge also ordered Mr Young to pay the arrears of a maintenance pending suit order within 28 days, and rejected Mr Young's application to remit the arrears.

The judge recognised that enforcement of this order would be difficult for the wife, and noted that a judgment summons would not be possible, as the judge had made findings on a balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof.  The court observed that Mr Young had anyway already been sentenced to 6 months in jail for contempt of court, and the maximum term of imprisonment on a judgment summons is 6 weeks.

The wife's costs in this case, which had taken 6 years to final hearing and in which there had been around 65 separate hearings, totalled £6.4m, a sum the judge called ‘eye watering‘.  The judge's provisional view about costs was that Mr Young's non-disclosure had been so great, that Mrs Young should be entitled to her costs on an indemnity basis, but only to the extent of what he considered the case should have cost if it had been properly conducted.

The full judgment of Young v Young can be found on the court's website here.

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