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
Mubarak v Mubarik [2007] EWHC 220 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in an ancillary relief application following a very lengthy and costly litigation to enforce the court order awarding the wife a lump sum of £4,875,000. The wife applied, as alternatives: (i) to set aside, under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 37, the husband’s transfer of shares into the husband’s Jersey trust; (ii) to set aside, also under s 37, the wife’s exclusion from the trust; (iii) to vary the terms of the trust, as a post-nuptial settlement, under s 24(1)(c), so as to require the trustees to pay the wife an amount equal to the amounts now owed by the husband to the wife; and (iv) to correct the judge’s original order under the slip rule.
L v (1) L (2) H (a firm) [2007] EWHC 140 (QB)
The firm acted for the wife and the wife’s solicitors (Defendants) in an application by husband requesting that the wife’s solicitors hand over copies of his hard drive which had been copied during the course of divorce proceedings.
H v H [2007] EWHC 459 (Fam)
The firm acted for the Respondent in a big money case involving the division of substantial property built up over the course of a long marriage and the husband’s future earnings.
Mia Holman v Graham Anthony Kingston Howes [2007] EWCA Civ 877
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in an appeal against an order in a property dispute where the original order had stated that no order for sale would be made for the “time being”. The appellant was seeking both more certainty about her right to stay in the house and a larger beneficial interest.
P v P [2007] EWHC 2877 (Fam)
The firm acted in ancillary relief proceedings where the judge had to decide how to split the matrimonial assets where the husband claimed that a significant portion of the assets had been accrued after the couple separated. There was also dispute as to the total value of those assets.
Mubarak v Mubarik [2006] EWHC 1260 (Fam)
Acted for the husband (Respondent) in a long running ancillary relief case concerning enforcement of lump sum and periodical payment orders where the applicant was alleging that the respondent was wilfully refusing to pay. The case is novel in the discussion generated concerning the applicants use of the ‘Hadkinson’ principle to try and prevent the husband from being heard on the grounds that he is in contempt of court.
S v S [2006] EWHC 2793 (Fam)
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in ancillary relief proceedings involving the disposal of the assets as between the wife and the husband, in particular, the disposition of the property and assets and the amount of the lump sum to be paid by the husband to the wife, following his redundancy.
Mark v Mark [2005] UKHL 42; [2005] 2 FLR 1193
The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in an appeal that his wife’s divorce petition could not be heard in England on the grounds that she was here illegally, and therefore she could not be seen to be domiciled or habitually resident in this country.
Mia Holman v Graham Anthony Kingston Howes [2005] EWHC 2824 (Ch)
The firm represented the husband (Defendant) in a case involving the respective interests of a divorced couple in a property registered in the sole name of the husband, who was seeking by counterclaim an order pursuant to section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) for the immediate sale of the property to enable his half share in the property to be realised.
C v FC (Brussels II: Free-Standing Application for Parental Responsibility) [2004] 1 FLR 317
The firm acted in a case involving whether parents could remain habitually resident in England despite having been away for over two years and having established habitual residence in another country.
C v FC (Children Proceedings: Costs) [2004] 1 FLR 362
The firm acted in a child’s case involving order for costs in absence of unreasonable behaviour, where a mother acted unreasonably in failing to disclose existence of proceedings in Portugal.
M v M [2004] EWCA Civ 168
The firm acted for the husband (Appellant) in a case where the court had to decide the extent to which an overstayer is disqualified by illegality from asserting an habitual residence or a domicile of choice in this jurisdiction in order to satisfy the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.
