The court heard an application for ancillary relief and variation of a post nuptial settlement. Each party made allegations of misconduct against the other, and the litigation had been bitter and protracted. W had obtained copies of H’s private email correspondence, and H had relocated financial assets.
Held: H’s actions were exceptionally unpleasant and were capable of amounting to conduct under s25(2)(g) of the 1973 Act. W’s allegations of violence were false, and ‘W’s actions were exceptionally malicious and are capable of amounting to conduct’ similarly. Mostyn J said: ‘The tale here leads to a number of lessons needing to be learned. The first lesson is that the initial move in a divorce can colour the whole of the rest of the case. The second lesson is, as I have said before, that every action tends to give rise to an equal and opposite reaction. The third lesson is that allegations of dishonesty should be very carefully considered before they are made.’
Mostyn J referred to the forthcoming decision in Tenguiz, saying: ‘I hope very much that the Court of Appeal will not outlaw the use of Hildebrand material. In many cases in which I was involved when in practice the existence of substantial undisclosed funds, in some cases running to millions of pounds, was revealed by virtue only of the wife having obtained Hildebrand documents. But for the obtainment of the documents the funds would not have been found and a gross iniquity perpetrated on both the wife and the court.’
Mostyn J
[2010] EWHC 1630 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 64, [2010] Fam Law 1259
Bailii
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(1)(g)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo CA 19-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to how a Family Division judge might decide whether or not to publish an ancillary relief judgment at the conclusion of a trial during which one of the parties conspired to present a perjured case. H and family members had . .
Cited – NG 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:
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.421090