The court considered the consequences of mis-disclosure in ancillary relief proceedings. Thorpe J said: ‘Conduct is only relevant in so far as the wife relies upon the manner in which the husband has conducted these proceedings. Ordinarily speaking, it seems to me that the manner in which proceedings are misconducted is to be reflected in orders for costs rather than directly in the scale of the awarded sum. However, this seems to me to be the exceptional case where the husband’s strategy has been so extreme that it would be inequitable to disregard it. It seems to me that it is appropriate to look at the quantification of the wife’s share not of what remains today but of what would remain today had that policy of waste and destruction not been pursued.’
Judges:
Thorpe J
Citations:
[1995] 3 FCR 321
Statutes:
Matrimonial Causes Act 1989 25(2)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas (2) CA 19-Nov-1996
Both husband and wife had independent means, and neither worked. The wife had spent pounds 100,000k on Children Act proceedings, and sought ancillary relief. The judge had made an order on capital to reflect the fact that if those costs had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.235327