Lady Hiroko Barclay v Sir Frederick Barclay

Lady Hiroko Barclay v Sir Frederick Barclay

The applicant failed to prove to the criminal standard that the respondent had the means to pay the first lump sum of £50m, but did prove that the respondent had access to sufficient funds to pay the legal services payment order (£185k) and the maintenance arrears (£60k) during the relevant periods; the respondent neglected to pay those sums.

Parties
Applicant Wife: Lady Hiroko Barclay; Respondent Husband: Sir Frederick Barclay; Interested Parties: The Respondent’s nephews; Interested Party: Guardian News and Media
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Judgment Summons in Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment Enforcement
Outcome
First judgment summons dismissed; second and third judgment summonses succeed.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Judgment Summons, Means to Pay, Trust Structures, Maintenance Payments, Legal Services Payment Order
Family Law Trust Law Enforcement of Judgments Financial Remedies Judgment Summons Means to Pay Trust Structures Maintenance Payments +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lady Hiroko Barclay

Applicant Wife

Sir Frederick Barclay

Respondent Husband

The Respondent’s nephews

Interested Parties

Guardian News and Media

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judgment Summons in Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had the means to pay the sums ordered under the financial remedy orders
  2. 2 Whether the respondent wilfully refused or neglected to pay the sums due
  3. 3 Whether funds held in trust structures were accessible to the respondent for the purposes of satisfying the orders

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove to the criminal standard that the respondent had the means to pay the first lump sum of £50m, but did prove that the respondent had access to sufficient funds to pay the legal services payment order (£185k) and the maintenance arrears (£60k) during the relevant periods; the respondent neglected to pay those sums.

Court Disposition

First judgment summons dismissed; second and third judgment summonses succeed.

Orders

  • First judgment summons (non-payment of £50m lump sum) dismissed.
  • Respondent found to have neglected to pay £185k legal services payment order and £60k maintenance arrears; further submissions to be heard on steps to be taken.