Amy Taylor reports on non-disclosure & the Hildebrand myth
Ever since the judgment in Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244 the so-called “Hildebrand rules” have guided the approach family practitioners have taken towards access by one spouse to documents belonging to the other spouse. Wives (for ease of reference, this article assumes the wife is seeking ancillary relief from the husband) have long been advised to take copies of any significant documents belonging to their husbands provided that the originals are returned and no illegal act is committed in the process.
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2010] All ER (D) 320 (Jul), however, has revealed the Hildebrand rules to be nothing more than a myth, condemning them as “unlawful”. Consequently, action previously condoned by Hildebrand could now lead to practitioners and their clients being subject to civil and even criminal sanctions.
The Imerman story
In Imerman, the Court of Appeal ruled on two interlocutory appeals from the Queen’s
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
