Elena Makarskaya (Petitioner) v Andrey Korchagin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Moylan |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4393 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD12D04105 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 21 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4393 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Moylan
Case No: FD12D04105
Ms N Gray (instructed by Sears Tooth) appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Respondent appeared in person (assisted by a McKenzie friend).
Approved Judgment
Friday, 21 June 2013
This is a hearing in the course of contested financial remedy proceedings. At this hearing the wife has been represented by Ms Gray. The husband has appeared with the assistance of a McKenzie friend (Mr Stroilov), who I have permitted to advocate on behalf of the husband.
At the outset of his submissions, Mr Stroilov referred me to difficulties in the husband's position, which difficulties have also been set out in a skeleton argument prepared by the husband, or on his behalf, dated 20 June 2013.
The background is that on 14 June, i.e. a week ago, the husband dispensed with the services of his legal representatives, because of a disagreement, as I understand it, as to the level of a bill they had submitted. So he became, with effect from 14 June, a litigant in person. His previous solicitors have declined to release to him the papers relating to these proceedings. On Monday, the husband asked the wife's solicitors to send him the bundles. They offered instead to provide him with copies of the bundles if he collected them from their offices. He was unable to do that, and so has had a very limited period of time in which to familiarise himself with the papers. Notwithstanding these difficulties, a very detailed skeleton argument has been prepared by or on behalf of the husband, and Mr Stroilov has been able to make very detailed submissions. I am, therefore, satisfied that I have been able to undertake a fair hearing today to address the issues which have been raised before me.
The two matters which have been listed for hearing are the wife's applications for maintenance pending suit and for a Legal Services Order, the latter being pursuant to the new power contained in section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Given the time (and it is now approximately 4.15), I do not propose other than to give a relatively summary judgment. I consider that such a judgment is sufficient and appropriate, in part because this case was before King J on 7 June 2013 and she gave a short judgment in respect of the applications which were then before her. The applications before her were, again, applications on behalf of the wife for maintenance pending suit and for a Legal Services Order, and also an application made on behalf of the husband for a variation of a freezing order.
The background to the case is set out in King J's judgment, and I very briefly summarise it. The parties married on 8 January 2008. They are both Russian nationals. They started living together, according to the wife in 2005 and, according to the husband in 2007. They left Russia in 2009, following which the husband made a successful application for asylum as a political refugee. The wife was also granted permission to remain in the United Kingdom. The parties separated in August 2012. There are no children. This is, therefore, as described by King J, a short, childless marriage. The husband is aged 52 and the wife is aged 28.
The assets, according to a schedule that has been prepared for today's hearing by Ms Gray, total approximately £3.1 million. They comprise (very broadly expressed) properties in Montenegro in the joint names of the parties valued at just over £500,000, properties and other assets in the wife's name valued at approximately £128,000 and properties and liquid resources (bank accounts and bonds) in the husband's name valued at approximately £2.5 million.
As at the date of the hearing before King J, the principal issue on which the court was then focusing was the extent to which the assets in the husband's name were beneficially owned by him or were beneficially owned by his son. It was the husband's case that the bulk, if not all, of the assets in his name were in fact held by him on behalf of his son as the sole beneficiary. The court had listed a 3 day hearing for the determination of that issue. During the course of her judgment, notwithstanding the husband's asserted case, King J decided that the husband had the financial resources available to him to satisfy a Legal Services Order. She also decided that the wife had no assets available to her for the purposes of enabling her to obtain legal advice and representation. In reaching those conclusions, King J was applying the terms of sections 22ZA and 22ZB of the Matrimonial Causes Act. That is because, by 22ZA(3):
"The court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, without the amount, the applicant would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the purposes of the proceedings or any part of the proceedings."
s. 22ZB sets out the matters to which the court must have regard.
Having concluded that the wife would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services, and having concluded that the husband had financial resources available to him, King J made an order that the wife should receive a sum of £40,200. That sum was calculated by reference to the anticipated cost of the 3 day hearing. In paragraph 29(2) of King J's judgment she said:
"I dismiss that part of the wife's claim also which sought extensive backdating of the A v A order and a monthly sum of a quite astonishing £39,000 per calendar month, astonishing I would say in any event, but wholly disproportionate in relation to the relatively modest matrimonial pot."
She makes clear that her order is to cover the likely cost of the 3 day hearing.
Following the hearing before King J, the husband's then solicitors wrote a letter to the wife's solicitors dated 12 June 2013. This contains a concession made by the husband and his son, who was joined as a party to the proceedings by King J. I quote:
"In the circumstances, both our client and his son have taken the purely pragmatic decision to concede the issue of the ownership of the assets in his name and to therefore deal with them as his assets for the purposes of these proceedings."
As a result of that concession, namely that the assets in the husband's name are, by concession made by the husband and his son, to be deemed to be beneficially owned by the husband for the purposes of the financial remedy proceedings, the 3 day hearing was vacated. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v R
...months since the implementation of these powers there have been only three decisions referring to them namely Makarskaya v Korchagin [2013] EWHC 4393 (Fam)(21 June 2013); BN v MA [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam) (10 December 2013); and MET v HAT [2013] EWHC 4247 (Fam) (16 December 2013). It is fair t......