Ghoth v Ghoth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] EWCA Civ J0401-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | 92/0325 |
[1992] EWCA Civ J0401-5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE THORPE)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
92/0325
MR. G. A. RABIE (instructed by Messrs. Batchelors) appeared for the Appellant.
MR. O. D. WISE (instructed by Messrs. ColIyer Bristow) appeared for the Respondent.
We have been concerned this afternoon with an urgent appeal in relation to a matrimonial matter. The appeal relates to Mareva relief in the following circumstances. The husband claims to be domiciled in Saudi Arabia; the wife claims to be domiciled in this country; both of them appear to live in Ibiza. A preliminary issue was ordered as to whether the court had jurisdiction to hear a petition for divorce by the wife on the basis of the wife's alleged domicile in this country.
Pending that determination, interim maintenance was ordered in the sum of £500 per month and a Mareva injunction was granted covering, so far as could be seen, all the husband's assets worldwide, subject only to an exception that he was entitled to meet his "ordinary usual and reasonable living expenses, to include seeking legal advice and representation arising from this injunction and the divorce proceedings". Whether the use of the words "to include" in the context of "usual living expenses" is right does not matter; the sense is clear. In addition to his usual ordinary and reasonable living expenses he can seek and pay for legal advice and representation.
The decision which has been reached on the preliminary issue is that the wife is not domiciled in this country and notice of appeal has been given. It would, I think, be wrong for me to express any view as to the prospects of success, save to say that it does appear that, subject to one point about legal professional privilege, the main gravamen of the assault is that the learned judge misunderstood the evidence which was before him; in other words, that it is an appeal on fact rather than law.
Undoubtedly, we have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief pending the hearing of an appeal but there are, I think, one or two issues of general importance which seem to be highlighted by this case.
The first is that it is not apparent to me at any rate why, in matrimonial proceedings, either party should be entitled to a Mareva injunction extending to all the assets of the other party, even subject to the usual exceptions as to living expenses. After all, the purpose of a Mareva injunction is to safeguard the plaintiff or petitioner from a situation in which the assets of the opposing party are run down, either with the intention of making that party judgment proof or at least having that effect without reasonable excuse. It is not possible, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robin DE CRITTENDEN vCharles ALBERT BAYLISS
...suit had been ordered during the currency of a jurisdictional challenge to an asserted domicile or habitual residence. The case of Ghoth v Ghoth [1992] 2 FLR 300 is an 18 Of course the correction of a transcript of an oral judgment provides the judge with the opportunity to express himself......
-
Wermuth v Wermuth
...been ordered during the currency of a jurisdictional challenge to an asserted domicile or habitual residence. The case of Ghoth v Ghoth [1992] 2 FLR 300 is an 18 Of course the correction of a transcript of an oral judgment provides the judge with the opportunity to express himself different......
-
Wermuth v Wermuth
...agreed principles of jurisdiction. Cases referred to in judgmentsde Cavel v de Cavel Case 143/78 [1979] ECR 1055, ECJ. Ghoth v Ghoth[1993] 1 FCR 177, [1992] 2 All ER 920, [1992] 2 FLR 300, Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV Case C-99/96 [1999] ECR I-2299, ECJ. Reichert v Dresdner Bank AG (......
-
Cyyc v Tvkt
...it would be wrong for there to be an injunction covering the entirety of the assets.” The learned authors cited Ghoth v Ghoth [1992] 2 All ER 920, [1992] 2 FLR 300, CA as the 72. Butterworths Family Law Service, Vol 4(1) also made the point that Mareva injunction should be limited to the ma......
-
Asset Preservation Orders - Mareva Injunctions
...Leasing Inc , 2022 ONSC 1132 at paras 140–41. 119 10390160 Canada Ltd v Casey , 2022 ONSC 628 at paras 45–46. 120 See Ghoth v Ghoth , [1992] 2 All ER 920 (CA). In National Bank Trust v Yurov , [2016] EWHC 1913 (Comm), Males J stated at para 69: As has been said many times, the purpose of a ......
-
Table of cases
...329 Getz v Barnes (1989), 71 OR (2d) 450, [1989] OJ No 2273 (HCJ) ..................... 478 Ghoth v Ghoth, [1992] 2 All ER 920 (CA) ......................................................... 190 Giles (CH) & Co v Morris, [1972] 1 WLR 307, [1972] 1 All ER 960, 116 Sol J 176 (CA) ...................
-
Asset Preservation Orders - Mareva Injunctions
...the characteristics of the defendant have led to a blank wall. Precisely what form 83 Ibid . at para. 74. 84 See Ghoth v. Ghoth , [1992] 2 All E.R. 920 (C.A.). 85 Above note 64. 86 TTMI Ltd of England v. ASM Shipping Ltd of India , [2005] EWHC 2666 (Comm) at para. 25 (Q.B.). Asset Preser va......
-
Table of Cases
...224 Getz v. Barnes (1989), 71 O.R. (2d) 450, [1989] O.J. No. 2273 (H.C.J.) ............... 342 Ghoth v. Ghoth, [1992] 2 All E.R. 920 (C.A.) .................................................... 124 Giles (C.H.) & Co. v. Morris, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 307, [1972] 1 All E.R. 960, 116 Sol. J. 176 (C.A......