G v G
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS JUSTICE BARON |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1993 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD02D03678 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 19 June 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1993 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
The Honourable Mrs Justice Baron
Case No: FD02D03678
The Petitioner appeared in person
MR MICHAEL TURNER appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Draft Judgment
No of Folios: 38
No of Words: 2703
Monday, 19 June 2006
One of the many applications before me today relates to the payment of part of a lump sum, totally £270,000 that was made in favour of VG ("the wife"). This matter has been before me on at least two previous occasions. The most important of which was in April 2004 when I was the judge who dealt with the FDR appointment. On that occasion, the wife was represented by Mr Collins of counsel, an experienced barrister in this field of work, together with Messrs Dawson Cornwall, an equally prestigious firm who specialises in matrimonial work. The husband, Mr BG ("the husband") had a team of excellence in the form of Miss Cowton of counsel and Mr Fisher who is equally well known and works and is a partner of Alexiou Fisher Phillips.
This case was destined for a lengthy and very expensive trial and so it was important to both of these parties that they should, if they could, reach an agreement at the mediation session before me. The dispute between the parties was immense, for it was the wife's case that her husband, a successful solicitor, was a man of immense wealth, whereas it was his case that his solicitor's practice was severely in debt and that he had few assets in his own right.
It is clear that in accordance with their cultural tradition, the husband and the wife had made their home with Mr G's parents who owned a property called Hyland. It was equally the case that Mr and Mrs G junior were apparently involved in a number of offshore structures, which was, of course, of benefit to them as they had an offshore domicile. Clearly, the commercial skill in relation to the family law with their son, the husband in this case.
It was his contention that a number of monies held offshore, specifically in an account named Odessa, belonged beneficially to him and his parents. In fact, when this litigation began, his mother removed a significant amount of monies from the Odessa account and placed them in the name of herself and her daughter. As a result of applications made to this court, her fund was frozen. Equally, a fund that might have been thought to have been earmarked for Mr G senior, was equally frozen, as were, as I recall, the husband's own funds.
When the matter came before this court on 30 April 2004, there was only one way in which it could be settled. That was if, in reality, the wife accepted that her claims in relation to undisclosed assets were not proceeded with, and secondly that the husband accepted that the family in the widest sense, produced the monies that were required to settle the case. Where the truth lay in relation to claim and counterclaim, was not a matter which this court could adjudicate upon, and so it was left to the parties to see if they could reach an agreement which suited each of them in the context of their respective viewpoints and needs.
The result was an agreement set out in a number of recitals to the order that the wife accepted various matters, in particular, that (1) Highlander, 158 Leesons Hill Chislehurst in Kent, was owned by Mr and Mrs G senior; (2) (and I in this sense am not dealing with all of the recitals) that she was not going to take any further steps in relation to Odessa Management Limited, because it had been owned beneficially equally by Mr and Mrs G senior and her husband. She accepted that the Odessa management funds are and were predominantly capital funds generated by family investments outside the United Kingdom and did not belong to the firm that the husband worked in as a partner, namely Messrs Arlington Charles.
The agreement was that £270,000 would be produced by way of a lump sum. The paragraph that sets this out, numbered (1) in the consent order, was that the first respondent husband would pay or cause to be paid (and I emphasise those words) a lump sum of £270,000. For the avoidance of doubt, the lump sum was deemed to be in satisfaction of any sums due to the wife by way of maintenance arrears pursuant to an order that I had made on 20 February. All existing costs orders made in her favour in the ancillary relief divorce suit and Children Act proceedings, and the remainder was "in respect of the petitioner's housing costs". The lump sum was payable in two tranches, £100,000 within two months of the date of this order. The order is dated 30 April, although most unfortunately there was a delay in the Associates' office and it was not finally stamped by this court until 21 June 2004. That is, I am afraid, unforgivable, and insofar as the parties consider that this merits attention, they should each of them seek details from the Associates office in relation to that.
(b) The balance of the lump sum of £170,000 was to be paid no later than 24 hours before exchange of contracts for the purchase by the petitioner of a property provided that that did not take place within two months of the date of this order. That is effectively by 1 August 2004. Since then, the lump sum of £100,000 has been paid. For reasons which are not immediately apparent to me, most of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myerson v Myerson
...her reasons in an extempore judgment. Her ruling can have been no surprise to Mr Ewins since she had already decided the issue in the case of G v G [2007] 1 FLR 237. 14 Mr Ewins sought permission to appeal which she refused, signing detailed reasons for her refusal. 15 Accordingly Mr Ewins ......