Al-Khatib v Masry: FD 2002

The court heard an application for an ancillary relief order in divorce proceedings.
Held: General reputation prevailing in the community, and the mere opinions, inferences or beliefs of witnesses, are inadmissible in proof of material facts. The court awarded awarded the petitioner a total of some pounds 25 million, of which pounds 5.5 million represented the capitalised amount, calculated on a Duxbury basis, of her needs assessed at the annual figure of pounds 225,000. The petitioner was entitled to have the part of the order which was referable to ‘maintenance’ within the meaning of the Conventions expressed as such, since a Duxbury fund calculated as such constituted ‘maintenance’ for this purpose.
Munby J considered as the ‘seemingly unanswerable question’ the question of how to calculate the consequences of non-disclosure by one party in ancillary relief proceedings.
Munby J
[2002] 1 FLR 1053, [2002] EWHC 108 (Fam)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromAl-Khatib v Masry and others CA 26-Jun-2002
Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order. . .
Appeal fromAl-Khatib v Masry and others CA 5-Oct-2004
The parties had been involved in protracted and bitter family disputes. After a previous appeal they had been invited to refer their disputes to mediation.
Held: At that time, mediation within the Appeal Court was managed by commercial . .
CitedTraversa v Freddi CA 14-Feb-2011
Jurisdiction in Cross border divorce
The parties had divorced in Italy. After the wife sought possession of her house in London where H lived, he appealed against refusal of leave to apply for an order under the 1984 Act, the court having found insufficient substantial grounds for . .
CitedNG v SG FD 9-Dec-2011
The court considered what to do when it was said that a party to ancillary relief proceedings on divorce had failed to make proper disclosure of his assets. H appealed against an award of a capital sum in such proceedimngs.
Held: . .
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.384143