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.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Rebecca Delaney
Rebecca Delaney
Director & Partner
Read on
Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan [2017] EWHC 2739 (Fam)
Date:22 NOV 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Mostyn J, 9 November 2017)

Financial remedies – Fact-finding – Husband claimed insolvency due to theft of money – Whether others had financial claims against him

The court rejected the husband’s claim that £200m had been stolen from him and found that the only person who had a valid claim against him was the wife.



For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482. 


Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2739 (Fam)
Case No: FD14D00158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 09/11/2017

Before:

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN
Sitting in Public
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

Tania Jane Richardson-Ruhan
Applicant

- and -

Andrew Joseph Ruhan
Respondent

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

Sally Harrison QC and Abigail Bennett (instructed by JMW Solicitors) for the Applicant
Martin Pointer QC and Richard Sear (instructed by Miles Preston Solicitors) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 9-20 October 2017

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

Judgment Approved


MR JUSTICE MOSTYN

This judgment was delivered in public. However, an order imposing certain reporting restrictions is in place. Specifically, in no report of the case may the names or schools of the children be published and no further details of the BAE arbitration may be given beyond that referred to in the judgment. Breach of these prohibitions will amount to a contempt of court.


Judgment:
Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan [2017] EWHC 2739 (Fam).rtf
Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389
Family Law Awards 2019
Family Law Awards 2019
Shortlist announced - it's time to place your...
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer"...
£519.99