Three members of Hare Court have successfully represented the appellant husband in the recently-reported “strike-out” case of Vince v Wyatt [2013] EWCA Civ 495.  The parties had a short marriage in the early 1980s, when neither had any wealth at all, and finally divorced in the early 1990s.  The husband has since become very successful, and had since remarried.  The wife remained impecunious, and brought an application for a financial remedy against him. She was initially awarded an A v A funding order of £125,000 against the husband when the court refused his application to strike out her claim.

The husband’s appeal against the court’s refusal to strike out the wife’s claim (and the A v A order) was allowed on 8 May by a Court of Appeal made up of Thorpe, Jackson and Tomlinson LJJ.  Martin Pointer QC, Geoffrey Kingscote and Simon Webster were brought in to represent the husband in his appeal.

Nigel Dyer QC of 1 Hare Court has represented the applicant wife in the case of CR v MZ [2013] EWHC 925 (Fam), just reported on Family Law Week’s website. In this case, the court (Jonathan Cohen QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) considered a preliminary issue about ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of a complicated financial remedies application. The wife succeeded in obtaining a declaration that the property was jointly beneficially owned by herself and the husband, and in achieving an award of indemnity costs against the husband and his father, who had intervened in proceedings.

1 Hare Court’s Richard Todd QC acted for the husband in T v T  [2013] EWHC B3 (Fam), recently reported by Family Law Week, obtaining a court order on the basis of a separation agreement concluded 22 years ago. The parties had divorced in 1995 and the husband had since remarried. The wife had requested a full trial of her application for a financial remedy, but the court (Parker J) upheld the husband’s case that there was no reason why the agreement should not be made into a court order.

Counsel from 1 Hare Court represented all parties in the case of AC v DC & Ors (Financial Remedy: Effect of s37 Avoidance Order) (No 1) [2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam), just reported on Family Law Week’s website. The case concerned an application for an avoidance of disposition order under s 37(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 related to a big-money financial remedies case. The court (Mostyn J) held that an order for a transaction to be set aside operates retrospectively for all legal and fiscal purposes, taking effect ab initio.

Deborah Bangay QC represented the applicant, Valentine Le Grice QC represented the first respondent, Nicholas Carden represented the second respondent and Nigel Dyer QC represented the remaining 5 respondents.

At a subsequent hearing before Bennett J, the court attributed the sum of £8m (of a total pot of £38m) to the husband as pre-marital property, which was not shared by the wife. The wife was awarded £15m, being half of the remaining assets. Deborah Bangay QC again represented the wife, and Valentine Le Grice QC again represented the husband. This judgment is reported by Family Law Week as AC v DC (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2420 (Fam).

Counsel from 1 Hare Court succeeded in achieving a departure from equal division for the respondent husband in the case of Evans v Evans [2013] EWHC 506 (Fam), recently reported by Family Law Week. This was an application for a financial remedies order in a case where the assets were around £40m. The court considered issues of conduct, “add-backs”, special contribution and the classification of marital property.

Martin Pointer QC and Tim Bishop QC represented the husband.

1 Hare Court’s Valentine Le Grice QC acted for the husband in the case of Arif v Anwar & Anor [2013] EWHC 624 (Fam), recently reported by Family Law Week. The judgment regarded preliminary hearings on matters relating to the husband’s bankruptcy and the extent of his estate. The court commented on the effect of cultural norms in a legal context, and the role of the chancery division in cases where bankruptcy and financial remedies are intertwined.

1 Hare Court is pleased to announce that Bruce Blair QC and Deborah Bangay QC are now qualified Family Law Arbitrators.  They join Valentine Le Grice QC, Gavin Smith and Sir Peter Singer in Chambers’ Arbitration group.  Please contact Luke Carvalho on 020 7797 7070 if you would like more information.

The Supreme Court (seven justices sitting) heard the appeal in Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors on Tuesday and Wednesday this week (5 and 6 March 2013).

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal its decision in this case, which raises the question of whether courts dealing with financial remedy proceedings have the jurisdiction to order the transfer of properties or other assets belonging to companies owned by the parties, on the basis that they are assets to which that spouse is “entitled” for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) of the MCA 1973.

Richard Todd QC and Stephen Trowell are representing the Wife.

1 Hare Court’s Martin Pointer QC acted for the applicant wife in T v T (Anti-arbitration injunction) [2012] EWHC 3462 (Fam), reported by Family Law Week.  The case considered whether the wife should be granted an Hemain order restraining the husband from forcibly pursuing arbitration (in accordance with the terms of a pre-marital agreement) in the USA.  Proceedings had been issued both in England and in the USA, the husband having applied to stay proceedings here to allow for arbitration to take place in the USA.

1 Hare Court’s Nicholas Cusworth QC acted for the Petitioner, Martin Pointer QC and Simon Webster acted for the Respondent, and Deborah Bangay QC acted for the Interveners in the case of BP v KP and NI (Financial Remedy Proceedings: Res Judicata) [2012] EWHC 2995 (Fam), reported by Family Law Week.  This was a High Court judgment concerning preliminary issues in an on-going case.  The issue was whether the Petitioner should be estopped, under the principle of res judicata, from running arguments concerning an agreement made between the Respondent and the Interveners, and whether a case for “add back” can be run arising out of the same agreement.