Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Kara Swift
Kara Swift
Read on

MA v SK [2015] EWHC 887 (Fam)

Date:29 APR 2015
Law Reporter
(Family Division, Moor J, 13 March 2015)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2016] 1 FLR 310]

Financial remedies – Jurisdiction

A property in London and its associated company shareholding would be transferred to the wife in satisfaction of her claim for financial remedy under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

Please see attached file for full judgment.

The immensely successful and wealthy Saudi husband and the Lebanese wife were married twice. When they divorced for a second time the wife moved to England and was granted an investment visa. She applied for: a declaration under s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 in relation to a property in London, worth approximately £14.5m; orders pursuant to Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to that property and financial remedies following an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. She claimed that the husband was worth in the region of $1bn. A company in which the husband held shares made an application against the wife for possession of the property.

The husband claimed that he had run out of money. He disputed the jurisdiction of the English court and accused the wife of blatant forum shopping.

On the totality of the evidence there was a sufficient connection with the jurisdiction due to the wife’s residence in England for the year preceding her application and other factors such as the fact that their first marriage was celebrated here. The husband had not given full and frank disclosure and his evidence had been self serving. On the evidence presented it was likely that he had assets of approximately £275m. It was appropriate for the property and the company shareholding to be transferred to the wife. The wife’s overall award was assessed on a ‘needs light’ basis. She was awarded in addition to the London property, a property in the South of France. The combined value of both was £8.8m. No orders were made under the MWPA and Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996.
Case No: FD14P00733;FD14F00249; FD14F00365
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 887 (Fam)


Royal Courts of Justice

Date: 13th March 2015

Before :

Mr Justice Moor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :


- and -


S Investments  NV



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Martin Pointer QC, Mrs Rebecca Carew Pole and Miss Kyra Cornwall for the Applicant (instructed by Schillings)
Mr Tim Amos QC and Miss Laura Heaton for the Respondent (instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP)

Hearing dates: 10th to 18th November 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


MA v SK [2015] EWHC 887 (Fam)