Divorce
Akhmedova v Akhmedov and others [2020] EWHC 2235 (Fam), [2020] All ER (D) 01 (Sep)
FPR 4.1(6) was not the correct procedural route applicable to set aside or vary applications pertaining to final financial remedy orders. Accordingly, the Family Division, ruling on an application which arose in proceedings concerning the enforcement of a debt owed which a husband owed to a wife, held that there should be no variation of certain orders made in earlier proceedings, which required artwork and a yacht to be transferred to the wife. The court also held that there should be no stay of the wife’s claim against two respondents, in circumstances where the purpose of the Liechtenstein proceedings was different, holding that the fact that certain of the relevant assets were held in Liechtenstein did not mean that her claims were governed by Liechtenstein law. The court further ruled that the balancing exercise fell squarely in favour of making orders for disclosure in favour of the wife against two of the respondents in the proceedings.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
