Reported Cases
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 The Legal 500 2020
Potanin v Potanina [2019] 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) [2018] 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 [2018] 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 [2018] 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 [2017] 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.
G v S [2017] EWHC 365 (Fam)
Advised the mother (Applicant) in a case determining unresolved issues arising from a claim under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, in particular a provision seeking to restrict the mother and child from purchasing a replacement property outside England and Wales, effectively to prevent external relocation before a specified stage in the child’s education.
Mantegazza v Mantegazza [2017] EWHC 3811 (Fam)
The firm acted in an application by the husband for a stay of divorce proceedings started by the wife in England where he wanted the proceedings to be held in Switzerland.
BD v FD (No 2) [2016] EWHC 594 (Fam)
The firm acted for the wife in high value financial remedy proceedings which involved a dispute between parties as to the fair level of an applicant’s needs where there was a substantial divergence as to the level of those needs.
Work v Gray [2016] EWCA Civ 286
The firm acted for the husband in an application for permission to appeal against an order which rejected his claim that he had made a special contribution, earned and amassed by acumen and drive, and that this “special contribution” was “unmatched” by contributions which the wife had made to the welfare of the family.
Work v Gray [2016] EWHC 562 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in a wife’s application for a financial remedies order after a divorce. The financial remedy proceedings concerned the applicability and calculation of discounts on certain risk-laden or partially-illiquid investment funds for the purpose of capital distribution following an order for equal sharing of all net assets.
Al-Juffali v Estrada & Another [2016] EWCA Civ 176
Advised the Wife in an appeal where the court considered international and domestic law and determined that it was wrong to hold that in principle diplomatic immunity could not shield a husband from a wife’s Part III MFPA 1984 claim.
Estrada v Al-Juffali [2016] EWHC 213 (Fam)
Acted for the wife in an application for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and the Family Proceedings Act 1984. Husband’s counter application to strike out her claim predicated on his assertion of protection from civil action arising from diplomatic immunity.
