Julian Ribet reported cases

Williams v Williams[2024] EWHC 733 (Fam)

Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey OBE

Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932.

Julian and Alistair acted on behalf of the successful wife in her application for the leave of the court to apply for a financial order following an overseas divorce (what is known as a “Part III claim”). 

The couple were both of Russian origin and also married and spent the majority of their lives there. They lived in various countries, including England. Upon separation, the wife moved to Tenerife while the husband and their daughter remained in the UK. 

The husband petitioned for divorce in Moscow, and a few weeks later, the wife issued her own petition in London asserting that the husband was habitually resident there. Although the husband gave undertakings not to progress the case in Moscow, financial proceedings in Russia eventually ended in what appeared to be an agreed order.

The wife consequently made an application for leave to issue a claim under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

She alleged that the Russian court order gave her only a small percentage of the husband’s total wealth and that there was no full and frank disclosure process. 

The Court held that the wife’s arguments, when taken together, satisfied the test that there was a substantial ground for leave to be granted.

US v SR (No. 3 Needs) [2014] EWHC 24

The main focus of this decision was determining the distribution of the parties’ assets, particularly in light of the misconduct determinations from the first hearing. 

It was found that the wife’s conduct in the sale of an asset could not be ignored, and a sum was reattributed to her account to represent the loss arising from that sale. 

The general rule in financial remedy proceedings is that the Court will make no order for costs. However, the Court determined that the husband’s litigation conduct (i.e. his fraud) was such that it justified to make an order that he pay 70% of the wife’s costs.

US v SR (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 2864

Julian and Alistair successfully acted on behalf of the wife to secure the release of funds from a frozen bank account of the husband’s to pay the wife’s unpaid and future legal expenses to enable the case to be brought to a conclusion at a final hearing.

US v SR (No. 1) [2014] EWHC 175

Julian and Alistair acted on behalf of the wife in this case which involved allegations of serious non-disclosure and litigation misconduct. 

The parties had enjoyed a comfortable existence during the marriage: they had built up a portfolio of investment properties in Moscow, had homes in Moscow and England, and were able to afford private education for their children and luxury holidays. 

There was significant hostility between the parties with both alleging the other to be guilty of litigation misconduct. 

Both parties alleged that there were hidden funds: the husband asserted that the wife had sold certain matrimonial properties at significant undervalues and the wife asserted, among other things, that there were undisclosed offshore accounts containing significant sums.

Ultimately Julian and Alistair were successful in proving serious non-disclosure by the husband who accepted that he had forged bank account statements to hide significant sums and had lied about the level of the income that he was receiving. 

In its decision the Court set out guidance as to when adverse inferences may be drawn against a party and the extent to which this type of serious litigation misconduct (e.g. non-disclosure) which would lead to an award of costs being made against a party.

In this case the Court found the husband’sconduct to be ”of the most egregious nature”. It was a “deliberate, conscious and sustained fraud perpetrated against the wife, her advisers, his own legal team and the Court” and it resulted in a significant and punitive costs order being made against him.

Rabia v Rabia [2014] EWCA Civ 1767

Julian acted on behalf of the wife in relation to the application for permission to appeal brought by the husband following the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings. 

The husband felt that the balancing exercise of discretion conducted by the Judge at first instance: (1) produced an outcome which was unfair in its calculations since the Judge had wrongly assumed that the husband had further undisclosed wealth, (2) wrongly included the pre-acquired pension in the pot for division, and (3) made a costs order against him which was too high. 

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal rejected all three grounds and held that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

AM v SS [2014] EWHC 865

Julian acted for the respondent Husband in a matter concerning the weight to give to valuable resources which do not belong to one of the parties in the litigation (e.g. assets owned by family members or a family trust). 

The wife alleged that the husband’s family’s assets could be measured ‘probably in billions’ and that an order made against the husband would in fact be met by his father. 

Ultimately, the Court decided it would in essence be ‘crossing its fingers and hoping a rich parent would pay up’. The father had no legal obligation towards his adult son.

AM v SS v WS [2014] EWHC 2887

Julian acted for the husband in a matter concerning a preliminary issue concerning the ownership of several properties. 

The wife maintained that the husband was at least the beneficial owner of four properties, and that accordingly they should be recognised as belonging to him within the proceedings. 

The husband’s position was that he had only one of the properties, and no beneficial interest in any of the other properties since they belonged either to his father or his sister (the Intervenor).  

The court determined that the wife’s evidence was not wholly clear or consistent on when she alleged the properties were received as gifts.

AM v SS [2013] EWHC 4380

Julian acted on behalf of the husband in relation to an application brought by the wife for a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) – an interim order to pay for her legal fees. 

This was one of the first reported decisions in relation to LSPOs which had only been introduced earlier that year. The wife argued that the husband had significant resources and that they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle during marriage, whilst she had limited funds. 

In its decision the Court outlined the correct process for bringing this type of application - an applicant for a LSPO must demonstrate that they cannot reasonably procure legal advice and representation by any other means, taking into account the subject of proceedings, the reasonableness of the applicant’s request, and the ability of the payer to pay. 

The Court rejected the suggestion that the husband owned various properties as the wife had alleged, or that he had the income to meet the wife’s legal fees. 

Instead, the court ordered a charge to be secured over a property that the husband did own, ensuring the funds for both parties to be represented.

AC v DC and Others (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2420

Julian acted on behalf of the wife in this case considering the appropriate split of ‘big money’ assets in light of the existence of valuable pre-marital assets. 

The court considered the value of the business at the date of marriage and its subsequent passive growth, and divided the remaining assets equally so as to achieve a fair outcome that met both parties’ needs.

AC v DC and Others (Financial Remedy: Effect of s37 Avoidance Order) [2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam)

Julian led the team of family, trust and tax lawyers who achieved a successful outcome on behalf of  the wife in this case where the High Court set aside an extremely complicated transfer of the husband’s shareholding (worth c.£54m) to an offshore corporate trustee. 

The Court found that the intention behind the transfer was to defeat the wife’s financial claims. This remains the largest reported “set aside” decision made by the Family Division of the High Court. A very substantial costs order was made in the wife’s favour.

K v B [2010] EWHC 2151

In this case Julian acted on behalf of the wife. The issue in this case was the question of who should pay the costs of the appeal. The dispute between the parties initially related to the wife’s Sharia law claim to a dowry, and the husband’s rights of custody under Sharia law arising on the child reaching 7 years old. 

The husband appealed against a preamble in the final financial order which left the issue of the dowry open, and which could lead to him facing the prospect of imprisonment if he were unable to pay. After expert evidence was heard by the appeal court, the parties agreed terms: the husband gave up his rights of custody and provided a contingency fund and the wife agreed to change the wording of the preamble. 

The outstanding issue was therefore the question of costs. The court stressed it retained its discretion when considering costs and the need to take a broad view of the litigation. 

The husband had acted unreasonably during litigation and failed to respond to reasonable suggestions by the wife, which was a major factor causing the costs of the appeal. Consequently, he was ordered to pay a significant proportion of her costs.

CC v RC [2007] EWHC 2033

In this decision the Court set out that parties should not expect the Court to enter into an extensive investigation of their pre-marital relationship many years later. Ultimately, in this case the Court ignored the fact the parties were in a relationship pre-marriage on the basis that the parties maintained separate homes until their marriage. 

The Court held that there was sufficient justification to depart from equal sharing given the wealth accrued by the husband prior to the marriage although no clear calculation or formula could be used to calculate this. The Court felt that it would be ‘foolish’ to try to undertake assessing the value of an individual’s wealth pre-marriage many years later.

Re S [2006] EWCA Civ 479

Julian and Alistair acted on behalf of the father in an appeal challenging the quantum of an investment fund to be utilised to purchase a property where the child could live during her minority. 

The mother contended that that she and her daughter needed to continue to live in the Knightsbridge area, where the daughter attended school, and where the property prices were higher than the order allowed for. 

The Court of Appeal held, allowing the appeal, that the Judge was wrong to simply scale down an award from another case and that the decision failed to focus on the child’s need to stay in Knightsbridge and the consequences to her of losing the familiarity of her home, her school and her friends.

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24

Julian was part of the team acting on behalf of Mr McFarlane in this landmark House of Lords case (prior to the introduction of the Supreme Court). The Court considered the conjoined appeals from Miller [2005] EWCA Civ 984 by the husband against the wife’s award following a short marriage, and McFarlane [2004] EWCA Civ 872 by the wife against the time-limit imposed on a periodical payment order. Both cases concerned ‘big money’ and achieving fairness in the division of income and assets on divorce.

In Miller, the parties had a short marriage. The husband was a high earner, whose wealth had grown considerably during the marriage, whilst the wife’s assets were less than her legal costs. The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, stating that the award of £5 million was within the ambit of the  Judge’s discretion. 

In McFarlane, the parties had been married for 16 years and had three children. Both had successful careers but agreed that the wife would abandon hers to raise the children. There was insufficient capital on separation to facilitate a clean break between the parties, and thus the wife was awarded spousal maintenance. At first instance, the wife was awarded £250,000 per annum by the District Judge, which was reduced to £180,000 by the High Court on appeal by the husband. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal by the wife, she was again awarded £250,000 but this was limited to five years, and it was the imposition of this limit that she appealed to the House of Lords. 

Lord Nicholls found that the purpose of a periodical payment order higher than the level of her expenditure was to remedy the significant future economic disparity arising from the wife having given up her  career. Given this, a five-year limit was inappropriate and unlikely to produce a fair outcome, and thus the wife’s appeal was allowed. 

This is one of the key family law decisions in the last 20 years. The judgment sets out the requirement for fairness, particularly when quantifying financial need, the application of the sharing principle, and compensation for economic disadvantage arising from marriage.

McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour [2004] EWCA Civ 872

Julian was part of the team acting on behalf of Mr McFarlane in this seminal case in the Court of Appeal. Given that the issues were very similar the appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal brought by Mrs Parlour, the wife of the Arsenal and England footballer. 

Over the years, the distinction between capital and income had been eroded and some spouses felt entitled to a share of their partner’s future earnings which had been made possible by their past contributions caring for the home and the family. In these cases both husbands earned very large sums of money, and in Mr McFarlane’s case, he was likely to continue to do so for a number of years.

The Court held that it had the power to order periodical payments to provide for overall fairness as required. In exceptional cases, periodical payments could help the recipient accumulate capital. The Court found that in McFarlane, the Court at first instance should not have provided for a joint lives maintenance order; there should have been a greater priority given to the wife achieving financial independence. 

At the end of a marriage, a clean break should be encouraged whenever possible and the wife has no right to continued economic parity with the husband unless and to the extent that consideration of her needs or compensation so require(this point was expanded upon in the House of Lords). Periodical payments should not be based on sharing, but rather needs or (exceptionally rarely.

W v J (Child: Variation of financial provision) [2003] EWHC 2657

Julian successfully acted on behalf of the father dealing with an application by the mother to vary payments under the Children Act 1989 to cover her estimated future legal costs. In the course of litigation, an order had previously been made by consent setting out the amount of periodical payments the father was to make for the benefit of the child. The mother sought to vary these payments to cover her forthcoming legal costs. The Court held it had no jurisdiction to make payments under the section of the Children Act that the mother had applied under. 

Payments for the ‘benefit of the child’ did not include money payable by one parent for the other’s legal fees, since the benefit would be for the recipient, not the child. Even if the Court did have jurisdiction, it stated that it would have been wrong for the Court to have exercised its discretion in favour of the mother in this case.

Re S (Contact: Children’s views) [2002] EWHC 540

Julian represented the mother in this case where the father sought contact with their three children, then aged 16, 14, and 12. The eldest child had not had significant contact with the father for more than a year and had expressed a wish to limit contact with him for the foreseeable future. The middle child had expressed a similar sentiment. 

For the eldest, no order for contact was made, but there was a declaration made that the Court believed contact to be in the child’s best interest. The Court made orders for contact by negotiation and agreement for the middle and youngest child. 

The Court decided that children of this age, particularly the eldest, they were to have their views respected, even if the Court believed their views to be mistaken. The Court viewed compelling children to have contact as counter-productive, preferring a method of respecting the child’s views and trying persuasion which acknowledged that they have their own views and opinions.