High Court Orders £453 Million Divorce Award - Goodman Ray
×

Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Supporting our clients through challenging times

We wanted to reassure you that we are taking all the required precautions and necessary reasonable steps to maintain our usual level of service.

The well-being of our people, clients and the wider community is paramount to us whilst we continue to focus on our clients and their needs.

Our IT infrastructure allows our staff to work effectively and efficiently from home when needed so that we remain operational and our service seamless.

Please continue to contact us by telephone or email.

Tel: 020 7608 1227 & Email: mail@goodmanray.com

If you would prefer a face to face discussion, we are able to arrange meetings by video.
We have access to a range of video conferencing options, including Skype, Zoom and Facetime.

We are following government advice to minimise social contact, and that includes avoiding all but essential meetings.

During this time service will only be accepted by email.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): Supporting our clients through challenging times. Find out more, click here.

In what is believed to be the largest award in financial remedy proceedings in the UK, the former wife of an oil and gas trader has been awarded £453 Million pounds by the High Court in the case of AAZ v BBZ* . The parties have not been named, but the wife is known to be Eastern European and 44 years old, and the husband is from the Caucuses and 66 years old. The case went before Mr Justice Haddon-Cave in late 2016, but details of the case have only recently emerged.

The case involved assets estimated by the wife to total over one billion pounds and the amount awarded to her represented 41.5% of the total assets. As would be expected in such a case, the court had to navigate a number of complicated and contentious issues. The assets included trusts and international holding companies with complex structures. The husband claimed these were discretionary trusts, whilst the wife disputed this interpretation. She claimed that these assets were wholly the husband’s resources. The importance of these issues is that whether or not the assets were resources available to the husband could have a profound impact on the calculation of the matrimonial ‘pot’ of assets.

Another disputed issue was the date of separation of the parties. The wife claimed that the marriage broke down in 2014, whilst the husband contended that the marriage ended in 1999, or 2004 at the latest. This should seem to the outside observer a relatively straightforward issue to resolve, but determining the date of separation required the court to review a range of documentary evidence and draw inferences from the husband’s and wife’s actions over a period of over ten years. The date of separation was a significant issue as the husband realised a substantial sum from the sale of shares in a Russian company in 2012, and the court needed to determine whether this should be included in the matrimonial assets.

This case demonstrates why many spouses of high net worth individuals seek to commence proceedings in England and Wales. The power of the court to award significant sums to the financially weaker party when using the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 means that England and Wales is likely to remain a favoured forum for those cases with an international dimension and significant assets when the jurisdiction is available. It also emphasises the importance of taking early and swift legal advice on jurisdiction where it is likely to be an issue. Taking the first steps in divorce proceedings where there are different jurisdictions available can be pivotal in deciding where a case is heard.

Thomas Brownrigg (Solicitor)

Edward Nicklin (Paralegal)

—————————————————————–

*[2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam) – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3234.html



© 2020 Goodman Ray | Legal & Terms | Goodman Ray Privacy Policy | Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority: 60514