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
Ilya Golubovich v Elena Golubovich [2011] EWCA Civ 479
The firm advised the wife (Respondent) in appeals against two earlier decisions, one of which was a judge’s decision not to adjourn and the second a sum awarded to the wife.
V v V [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam)
The firm acted for the wife (Petitioner) in a disputed divorce jurisdiction case involving consideration of the wife’s residence at the date of her divorce petition.
Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] EWCA Civ 810
The firm acted for the wife (Respondent) in an appeal involving a jurisdiction dispute concerning whether the court should recognise a decree of divorce obtained by the husband in Russia in breach of undertaking/Hemain injunction in England.
W v W [2010] EWHC 1843 (Fam)
The firm acted for the wife in a case involving whether it is permissible to serve documents initiating divorce proceedings on a Sunday and the effect, if any, of Sunday service on the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised.
Sally Ann Lykiardopulo (Appellant) v Panaghis Nicholas Fotis Lykiardopulo (Respondent) & Michael Lykiardopulo (Interested Party) [2010] EWCA Civ 1315
The firm acted for the wife (Appellant) in an appeal determining whether an ancillary relief judgment should be published when one of the parties had conspired to present a perjured case and, if it should (as in this case), the extent of any anonymisation or redaction.
H v H (Financial Relief) [2010] EWHC 158 (Fam) [2010]
The firm acted for the wife (Petitioner) in ancillary relief proceedings involving three complex factors: the vast wealth generated during the last three years of a marriage which lasted for twenty years; the unusual nature of the business that enabled the husband, with his partners, to generate that wealth; and the very difficult task of assessing the true value of the business as a prelude to determining the share (if any) of the business to which the wife can appropriately lay claim.
Ahmed v Khan [2010] EWCA Civ 290
The firm represented the husband (Appellant) in applications for permission to appeal by husband and associates refusal to strike out wife’s pleadings that shares and assets in family companies were held on constructive trust for the husband.
Marano v Marano [2010] EWCA Civ 119
The firm advised the wife (Appellant) in an appeal against a lump sum order in ancillary relief proceedings where the value of the husband’s property developments had fallen dramatically between filling of Form E and the trial.
Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] EWCA Civ 831
The firm acted for the wife (Respondent) in an appeal on a jurisdiction dispute concerning whether the court should recognise a decree of divorce obtained by the husband in Russia in breach of undertaking/Hemain injunction in England.
Elizabeth Tchenguiz Imerman v Vivian Saul Imerman [2010] EWHC 64 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent/Applicant) in an interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal in ancillary relief proceedings. The hearing was fixed to deal with consequential matters arising out of a previous judgment, including the issue of costs.
(1) Robert Tchenguiz (2) Vincent Tchenguiz (3) Tim McClean (4) Nouri Obayda (5) Sarosh Zaiwalla v Vivian Imerman : Vivian Saul Imerman v Elizabeth Tchenguiz Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908
Acted for the husband (Appellant) in an interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal in ancillary relief proceedings which raised fundamentally important questions in relation to the Hildebrand rules and addressed whether the wife should deliver obtained files to the husband’s solicitors (and retain no copies) and that the wife and her solicitors be restrained, at least for the time being, from using any information they might have gained from reading the files.
MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64; [2009] 3 WLR 437
The firm acted in an appeal by a husband from the Manx courts to the Privy Council against a judge’s decision to exercise his discretion to alter a post nuptial agreement. Appeal allowed.
