fbpx

Jail for Husband Who Flouted Court Ruling

12th July 2018 By Arman Khosravi

Court orders have to be obeyed and those who defy them can ultimately be sent to prison. Exactly that happened in one ‘big money’ divorce case in which an 83-year-old businessman repeatedly tried to thwart his ex-wife.

Following the end of the former couple’s 23-year marriage, the wife was awarded cash and assets, together worth £3.5 million, from a matrimonial pot totalling £9.4 million. The husband was, amongst other things, ordered to transfer to her his 100 per cent shareholding in a property company worth £1.6 million.

Following that transfer, the wife obtained a possession order to enable her to gain access to the company’s premises. On taking possession, however, she discovered that they had been stripped of almost all the documents and records that she would require to run the company effectively.

The husband had twice been ordered to reveal the whereabouts of the missing material and arrange its delivery to the wife. However, he failed to comply with those orders in full and a family judge ultimately sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court.

Over £500,000 had been spent on legal costs during the divorce proceedings and the judge noted that the once proud and canny businessman had been transformed into an isolated and sad shadow of his former self. Although it was undesirable to jail an elderly man in declining health, he had been motivated by a desire to display his resentment towards his ex-wife and had shown no remorse. After the man launched a challenge to the judge’s decision before the Court of Appeal, a stay of execution was granted.

However, in dismissing his appeal and lifting the stay, the Court noted that he had no right to retain the material and his ex-wife was seeking no more than she was entitled to as the company’s sole director and shareholder. He did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of what he had done and had made no apology or expression of regret. The judge’s ruling was meticulous and the sentence imposed was manifestly justified.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...