Shipman v Shipman: FD 1991

W sought an order under s37 of the 1973 Act restraining H in divorce proceedings from disposing of or dealing with $300,000, or one half of his severance pay, whichever was the greater, pending determination of the ancillary relief proceedings.
Held: The terms of s37 had not been satisfied. But, relying on Roche, it was wrong to believe that ‘there is no longer any inherent jurisdiction to freeze assets which may be put beyond the reach of the applicant.’ Lincoln J further held: ‘Counsel for the husband urges me to have regard to the many restrictions and safeguards surrounding the use of worldwide Mareva injunctions, and to assimilate the use of, and procedure for, injunctions in the Family Division to those in commercial Law. In my view the matrimonial field calls for a different approach. To my mind the circumstances here call for the injunction to continue. If it were discharged, the husband could well change his intentions, however genuine and well-disposed to the wife his present state of mind may be. Both he and the assets are out of the jurisdiction. Left without a job, and with new responsibilities, he will be faced with a temptation to eat into the whole of the fund.’


Lincoln J


[1991] 1 FLR 250


Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37


AppliedRoche v Roche CA 1981
. .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.564373