Akhmedova v Akhmedov and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 3006 (Fam) |
| Date | 04 November 2020 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD13D05340 |
[2020] EWHC 3006 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Knowles
Case No: FD13D05340
Tim Penny QC and Mark Belshaw (instructed by PCB Litigation LLP) for the Claimant
Unrepresented (instructed by BCL Solicitors) for the Eighth and Ninth Respondents
Oliver Assersohn (instructed by Patron Law) for the Tenth Respondent
Unrepresented (instructed by Patron Law) for the Eleventh Respondent
Hearing dates: 4 th November 2020
Approved Judgment
Wednesday, 4 November 2020
Judgment by Mrs Justice Knowles
This is the return date of the search order and forensic imaging order granted without notice by me against the tenth respondent, Temur Akhmedov [“Temur”] on 28 October 2020. The search order was served and successfully executed on 29 October 2020. It resulted in the seizure of 58 electronic devices, 47 of which appear to belong to Temur. Those devices appear to have been actively concealed from the wife, this court and Temur's former solicitors.
This ruling should be read alongside the ruling I gave on 28 October 2020 at the without notice hearing, Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 3005 (Fam).
Having reviewed the report of the supervising solicitor and correspondence between the parties, I am entirely satisfied that the search order was properly and conscientiously executed. I emphasise that Mr Assersohn, who represents Temur today, made no submission to the contrary. Temur's position today about the manner in which the search order was executed is important given press reports about this matter.
Mr Assersohn invites me to adjourn the return date for consideration of the propriety of granting a search order in the particular circumstances of this case to the trial, which is listed to commence on 30 November 2020.
He acknowledges in his position statement that the matters raised by the grant of the search order and the background to the grant of that order are potentially of importance at trial, and submits that it is only fair that Temur has a proper opportunity to deal with them. He asserts that Temur did not intentionally breach any order.
He submits that, in assessing whether or not there has indeed been a breach of this court's orders for disclosure and for the delivery up of electronic equipment and passwords to cloud accounts, and the extent of any breach, will turn on the analysis which is due to be conducted by Aon, the independent forensic computer consultants in this case. He submits to me that it requires to be established that the devices seized from Temur's flat fell within the definition of devices which were in Temur's possession, power, custody or control, and which were currently in use or had been used by him since 1 January 2013.
He makes the point that it has not been possible, given that the trial is advancing upon all of us at pace, for those who represent Temur to set out the position now, and that appropriately the parties' efforts have been directed towards agreeing the terms of the protocol to allow for proper examination of whatever relevant material is discovered in Aon's search of the seized devices. The spreadsheet I have seen this morning indicates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatiana Akhmedova v Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov
...v Akhmedov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3005 (Fam) Judgment accompanying the Search Order 04.11.2020 Knowles J Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3006 (Fam) Judgment made at the return date for the Search Order 07.12.2020 Knowles J Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3736 (Fam) Judgment in th......