(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
