We make every effort to settle cases but if litigation is necessary we are very expert in it.
Hughes Fowler Carruthers remains a firm of choice for the huge money cases
Potanina v Potanin  EWCA Civ 702
Crowther v Crowther  EWCA Civ 762
The firm acted for the wife (Apellant) in a case which involved obtained a freezing order to prevent the disposal or charging of four vessels operated within a shiping business. Her case was that she and the husband were entitled to beneficial interests in shares in the companies which owned the vessels. The freezing order had been discharged on appeal, and then reinstated pending this appeal by the wife. The appeal was allowed and the freezing order would continue, but on the terms set out in the schedule to the judgment, which would allow one of the vessels to be sold, or for vessels to be charged as security for a loan.
AF v SF  EWHC 1224 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in financial remedy proceedings in which almost all of the assets were held in Trust funds of which the husband was a beneficiary. The husband was represented by the Official Solicitor.
Timokhina v Timokhin  EWCA Civ 1284
The firm acted for the wife (Appellant) in an appeal in relation to an order that she pay £109,394 in respect of the costs of Alexander Timokhin, the father, incurred during the course of litigation concerning the future arrangements for the care of their children. The case involved considerations in relation to costs principles.
Pierburg v Pierburg  EWFC 24
Advised the wife (Petitioner) in a case on whether the wife’s application to divorce the respondent husband should be heard in the family court of England and Wales, as per the wife’s position, or in Germany, as per the husband’s position, following the wife’s move to the UK after the parties separated.
W v H  EWFC B19
Represented the wife (Applicant) in an application to set aside a consent order, on grounds that she had not had legal advice regarding the fairness of the consent order, and that being on Interpol’s wanted list had placed her under undue influence.
Rogan v Rogan  EWHC 814 (Fam)
The firm acted for the wife (Applicant) in an application issued for the committal of her former husband to prison for significant arrears of maintenance.
Potanin v Potanina  EWHC 2956 (Fam)
Acting for the wife (Respondent) in divorce proceedings which involved the application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for relief following an overseas divorce, in this case in Russia.
A v R (Children)  EWHC 2771 (Fam)
Acted for the mother (Appellant) in an appeal against a fact finding hearing in private children proceedings, where the judge provides a useful reminder of the law pertaining to domestic abuse cases, in particular the question of appeals arising from fact finding hearings.
Rogan v Rogan  EWHC 2512 (Fam)
Representing the wife (Applicant) in an application to commit her former husband to prison for significant non-payment and arrears of spousal maintenance following their divorce.
MB v TB  EWHC 2035 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in an application to establish the jurisdiction of the divorce proceedings. The issue related to whether there had been an abuse of process on the part of the wife after the husband claimed that she had issued her petition simply to secure the English jurisdiction in the event that a divorce was needed, and in fact the marriage had not, at that time, irretrievably broken down.
Bezeliansky v Bezelianskaya  EWCA Civ 76
Acted in an appeal regarding the working out and enforcement of orders for financial provision made at the conclusion of divorce proceedings between Russian nationals who took up residence in England.