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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

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