header-logo header-logo

Facing the facts

26 May 2011 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Features , Divorce , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Claire Sanders examines the principles of freezing orders in matrimonial proceedings as highlighted by ND v KP

Decisions on whether to apply for a freezing order in matrimonial proceedings generally have to be taken quickly. The decision in ND v KP (Asset freezing) [2011] EWHC 457 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 24 (May) provides a useful summary of the principles to be applied in relation to such applications and is a cautionary reminder of the duty of candour owed in the case of applications made without notice.

Facts

The parties were married in 2003. In July 2009 the wife commenced divorce proceedings and subsequently made an application for ancillary relief. In December 2010 she made a without notice application to the High Court for a freezing order under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. She successfully obtained an order freezing monies or funds within three bank accounts in Switzerland.

Her application was based on her assertion that the husband was in a position to deplete the assets and that there was a history of the husband

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll