A v A; B v B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2000 |
| Date | 2000 |
| Court | Family Division |
Divorce – Ancillary relief – Disclosure – Illegal or unlawful conduct – Whether court could disclose papers to prosecuting authorities.
Practice and procedure – Disclosure – Ancillary relief – Illegal or unlawful conduct – Whether court could disclose information to prosecuting or other public authorities – Circumstances in which disclosure should be ordered.
In two separate cases ordered to be tried concurrently the issue arose as to the options available to the court in ancillary relief proceedings where the ancillary relief material disclosed evidence of illegal or unlawful conduct, including the evasion or non-payment of tax. During the course of the ancillary relief proceedings the respondent husbands, who were in business together, had denied claims by their petitioner wives that they owned two companies, C Ltd or D Ltd, either directly or indirectly, and were seeking to hide their assets behind the corporate veil in England, and in particular in the Isle of Man. Those denials were set out in affidavits and in responses to questionnaires and they claimed to be merely employees of C Ltd. However, by the time of the hearing in the High Court, and after five to six years of consistent denials to the contrary, the husbands admitted that they were in fact the beneficial owners of C Ltd, as well as other satellite companies, and that they had attempted to hide the true extent of their assets. They then attempted to make good their past non-disclosure by providing the wives’ forensic accountant with access to their documents and answering their questions. That resulted in an agreement being reached on the first day of the hearing, and consent orders being made. The judge indicated to the parties that he was minded to disclose the papers to, inter alia, the Inland Revenue after hearing argument on issues relating to disclosure. The respondents then made full voluntary disclosure to the Revenue. The judge decided that it was still appropriate to deliver the following judgment as it had been submitted to him that his conclusions did not accord with current practice, and that the issues raised were of public and general importance.
Held – Where the ancillary relief material before the court indicated illegal or unlawful conduct (including the evasion or non-payment of tax) the court should generally order further disclosure, or use, of that material to the appropriate prosecuting or public authorities where it was satisfied that it was in the overall public interest to do so. As the consent of the person providing the information was not required, a party to ancillary relief proceedings should
be aware that if he did not claim the privilege against self-incrimination (where it applied) and provided information where there was a public interest in its disclosure to a prosecuting or public authority, the court might make, or authorise, such disclosure in the overall public interest. The purpose of holding ancillary relief proceedings in private was to keep from the public domain matters of an essentially private nature concerning people’s private lives: it was not to prevent public bodies from becoming aware of the commission of illegal or unlawful conduct, or other matters, which it would be in the overall public interest for them to be aware of. In assessing where the overall public interest lay in respect of further disclosure, whilst all the relevant circumstances of each case should be taken into account, the main factors would be the competing public interests. Where the court was satisfied that there existed liabilities to the Inland Revenue it would be wrong for it to ignore them, or to proceed on the basis that such liabilities would not be, or were unlikely to be, met because the Revenue would not be made aware of the relevant information, unless there was a compelling public interest outweighing the strong public interest in the payment of all sums lawfully due to the Revenue.
Cases referred to in judgmentA (a minor) (disclosure of medical records to the General Medical Council), Re[1999] 1 FCR 30, [1998] 2 FLR 641.
A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] AC 109, [1988] 3 All ER 545, [1988] 3 WLR 776, CA and HL.
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs (No 2) [1974] AC 405, [1973] 2 All ER 1169, [1973] 3 WLR 268, HL.
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim [1989] 3 All ER 466, [1989] 1 WLR 565.
Arrows (No 4), Re, Hamilton v Naviede [1995] 2 AC 75, [1994] 3 All ER 814, [1994] 3 WLR 656, HL.
Baker v Baker [1996] 1 FCR 567, [1995] 2 FLR 829, CA.
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (in liq) v Price Waterhouse (No 3) [1998] Ch 84, [1997] 4 All ER 781, [1997] 3 WLR 849.
Bolkiah (Prince Jefri) v KPMG [1999] 1 BCLC 1.
Cobra Golf Inc v Rata (No 2) [1998] Ch 109, [1997] 2 All ER150, [1997] 2 WLR 629.
Company’s application, Re a [1989] Ch 477, [1989] 2 All ER 248, [1989] 3 WLR 265.
Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, [1968] 1 All ER 874, [1968] 2 WLR 998, HL.
Crest Homes plc v Marks [1987] AC 829, [1987] 2 All ER 1074, [1987] 3 WLR 293, HL.
Den Norske Bank ASA v Antonatas [1999] QB 271, [1998] 3 All ER 74, [1998] 3 WLR 711, CA.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 2) (1988) Independent, 2 November.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 9) (1990) Independent, 12 November, [1990] CA Transcript 878; affg (1990) Financial Times, 6 November.
Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Times Newspapers [1975] QB 613, [1975] 1 All ER 41, [1974] 3 WLR 728.
Dobson v Hastings [1992] Ch 394, [1992] 2 All ER 94, [1992] 2 WLR 414.
EC (a minor) (care proceedings: disclosure), Re [1996] 3 FCR 521; sub nom Re C (a minor) (care proceedings: disclosure) [1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, [1996] 2 FLR 725, CA.
H (minors) (sexual abuse: standard of proof), Re [1996] 1 FCR 509, [1996] AC 563, [1996] 1 All ER 1, [1996] 2 WLR 8, [1996] 1 FLR 80, HL.
Home Office v Harman [1983] AC 290, [1982] 1 All ER 532, [1982] 2 WLR 338, HL.
Jenkins v Livesey [1985] AC 424, [1985] 1 All ER 106, [1985] 2 WLR 47, HL.
London United Investments plc, Re [1992] Ch 578, [1992] 2 All ER 842, [1992] 2 WLR 850, CA.
Marcel v Comr of Police for the Metropolis [1992] Ch 225, [1992] 1 All ER 72, [1992] 2 WLR 50, CA; rvsg [1991] 2 WLR 1118, [1991] 1 All ER 845.
Medway v Doublelock Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 1261, [1978] 1 WLR 710.
Morris v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1993] Ch 372, [1993] 1 All ER 788, [1993] 3 WLR 1.
P v P [1994] 1 FCR 293; sub nom P v P (financial relief: non-disclosure) [1994] 2 FLR 381.
P-B (a minor) (hearing in private), Re [1996] 3 FCR 705, [1997] 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765, CA.
Price Waterhouse (a firm) v BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA [1992] BCLC 583.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 3 All ER 878, [1991] 1 WLR 756.
R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274, [1994] 3 All ER 420, [1994] 3 WLR 433, HL.
R v Derby Magistrates’ Court, ex p B [1996] AC 487, [1995] 4 All ER 526, [1995] 3 WLR 681, [1996] 1 FLR 513, HL.
R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, ex p Smith [1993] AC 1, [1992] 3 All ER 456, [1992] 3 WLR 66, [1992] BCLC 879, HL.
R v R (disclosure to Revenue) [1998] 1 FCR 597, [1998] 1 FLR 922.
Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380, [1981] 2 All ER 76, [1981] 2 WLR 668, HL.
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881, [1977] 3 All ER 677, [1977] 3 WLR 63, CA.
Rowell v Pratt [1938] AC 101, [1937] 3 All ER 660, HL.
S v S (disclosure to Revenue) [1997] 3 FCR 1, [1997] 1 WLR 1621, [1997] 2 FLR 774.
Saunders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 313, ECt HR.
Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1028, [1979] 3 All ER 673, [1979] 3 WLR 762, HL.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417.
Soden v Burns [1996] 3 All ER 967, [1996] 1 WLR 1512.
Soden v Burns (No 2) (26 March 1997, unreported), Ch D.
Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 4 All ER 801, [1998] 3 WLR 1040, HL.
Vernon v Bosley (No 2) [1999] QB 18, [1997] 1 All ER 614, [1997] 3 WLR 683, [1998] 1 FLR 297, CA.
W v Egdell [1990] Ch 359, [1990] 1 All ER 835, [1990] 2 WLR 471, CA.
Wallace Smith Trust Co Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Haskins and Sells [1996] 4 All ER 403, [1997] 1 WLR 257, CA.
Westinghouse Electric Corp Uranium Contract, Re [1978] AC 547, [1978] 1 All ER 434, [1978] 2 WLR 81, HL; rvsg sub nom Re Westinghouse Electric Corp Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 [1977] 3 All ER 703, [1977] 3 WLR 430, CA.
ApplicationFollowing the approval of consent orders made in ancillary relief proceedings in two separate cases heard concurrently, the judge indicated to the parties that he was minded to disclose the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Law Society, authorities in the Isle of Man and the Inland Revenue in light of the respondents’ admission that they had attempted to hide the true extent of their assets, and he invited further submissions. The case was heard and judgment was given in chambers. The case is reported with the permission of Charles J.
James Munby QC (second hearing only) and Robin Rowlands (instructed by Gateley Wareing Solicitors) for Mr A and Mr B.
Deborah Bangay (instructed by March & Edwards) for Mrs A.
Brenton Molyneux (instructed by Evans Derry Binnion) for Mrs B.
Petar Starcevic (instructed by Pinkerton, Leeke & Wickstead) for the solicitors.
Cur adv vult
31 January 2000. The following judgment was delivered.
CHARLES J. IntroductionTwo cases came before me in which the petitioners (Mrs A and Mrs B) sought orders pursuant to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 against the respondents (respectively Mr A and Mr B). The cases had been ordered to be tried concurrently so far as was judged appropriate by the trial judge. The main reason for that order was that the two respondents were in business together and there was a very considerable overlap between the two cases in relation to the ascertainment of the assets of the respondents.
By the time that the cases came on for hearing before me the respondents had admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SITA UK Group Ltd and Another v Serruys and Others
...of leave would cause no injustice to the defendants nor 'detract from the solemnity and importance of the implied undertaking.' 23 A v A, B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701 concerned the applications of two wives for financial relief against their husbands. The husbands had attempted to conceal thei......
-
HRH Prince Louis of Luxembourg v HRH Princess Tessy of Luxembourg and another
...art 10(2). Cases referred to A (reporting restriction order),Re[2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam), [2011] 3 FCR 176, [2012] 1 FLR 239. A v A, B v B[2000] 1 FCR 577, [2000] 1 FLR Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616. Alkaya v Turkey (Application No 42811/06) (9 October 2012, unreported). Appleton v ......
-
Bloom v Bloom (publication of un-anonymised judgment)
...Y v Z (disclosure to police and FCA: publicity)[2014] EWHC 650 (Fam). Every case had to be taken on its own merits, applying A v A; B v B[2000] 1 FCR 577, (see [9], [14], [24], [25], (2) The gravity of the husband’s conduct was a factor in favour of un-anonymised publication, as was the fac......
-
The Commissioners for Hm Revenue and Customs v Mr John Robert Charman (First Respondent) Ms Beverley Anne Charman (Second Respondent)
...to Revenue) [1998] 1 FLR 922 gave leave to the Inland Revenue to retain the transcript of his judgment. [70] Charles J in A v A; B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701 heard together the ancillary relief applications by two wives whose husbands were in business together. Consent orders were made after it b......