Kerman v Akhmedova

Kerman v Akhmedova

The appeal fails because the information sought from Mr Kerman was not privileged, being communications with third parties, and even if privilege had applied, the fraud/iniquity exception would have removed it. The procedures adopted, including without notice and anti-tipping-off orders, were justified by the risk...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Anthony David Kerman; Respondent: Tatiana Akhmedova
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedies) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Fraud Exception, Financial Remedies, Anti Tipping Off Orders, Witness Summons, Freezing Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Fraud Exception Financial Remedies Anti Tipping Off Orders Witness Summons Freezing Orders

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony David Kerman

Appellant

Tatiana Akhmedova

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedies) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders requiring Mr Kerman to attend court and provide evidence were procedurally and substantively proper
  2. 2 Whether the orders breached legal professional privilege or were justified by the fraud/iniquity exception
  3. 3 Whether the 'anti-tipping-off' (gagging) orders and lack of notice were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the information sought from Mr Kerman was not privileged, being communications with third parties, and even if privilege had applied, the fraud/iniquity exception would have removed it. The procedures adopted, including without notice and anti-tipping-off orders, were justified by the risk of asset dissipation and were consistent with established law. The Family Division is bound by the same principles as other divisions, and no procedural unfairness or disproportion was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal by Mr Kerman dismissed; all challenged orders upheld.