Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3005 (Fam) (28 October 2020)

Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3005 (Fam) (28 October 2020)

The court was satisfied that all four requirements for a search order were met: (1) an extremely strong prima facie case against Temur Akhmedov; (2) serious potential or actual damage to the applicant due to concealment and destruction of evidence; (3) clear evidence Temur possessed incriminating documents with a real risk of destruction; and (4) the harm to Temur was not excessive or disproportionate given the safeguards in the order. The search order was necessary and proportionate to preserve evidence and give effect to previous court orders.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3005 (Fam)
Parties
Claimant: Tatiana Akhmedova; Tenth Respondent: Temur Akhmedov; First Respondent: Farkhad Akhmedov; Eighth Respondent: Counselor; Ninth Respondent: Sobaldo; Eleventh Respondent: Borderedge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Division Proceedings (ancillary Relief/enforcement) / Without Notice Application for Search Order Prior to Final Hearing
Outcome
Search order granted against Temur Akhmedov (without notice)
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Financial Orders, Insolvency Act Section 423
Family Law Civil Procedure Search Orders Disclosure Obligations Freezing Orders Enforcement of Financial Orders Insolvency Act Section 423

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tatiana Akhmedova

Claimant

Temur Akhmedov

Tenth Respondent

Farkhad Akhmedov

First Respondent

Counselor

Eighth Respondent

Sobaldo

Ninth Respondent

Borderedge

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Division Proceedings (ancillary Relief/enforcement) / Without Notice Application for Search Order Prior to Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a without notice search order should be granted against Temur Akhmedov to preserve evidence relevant to enforcement of financial orders and claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied that all four requirements for a search order were met: (1) an extremely strong prima facie case against Temur Akhmedov; (2) serious potential or actual damage to the applicant due to concealment and destruction of evidence; (3) clear evidence Temur possessed incriminating documents with a real risk of destruction; and (4) the harm to Temur was not excessive or disproportionate given the safeguards in the order. The search order was necessary and proportionate to preserve evidence and give effect to previous court orders.

Court Disposition

Search order granted against Temur Akhmedov (without notice)

Orders

  • Search order to be executed at Temur Akhmedov's flat to seize and image electronic devices for forensic examination by Aon.
  • Safeguards to minimise harm to occupants, including identification requirements and female search party members.