AP v ALP

AP v ALP

The court found that, despite initial non-disclosure and some misleading conduct by the husband, there was insufficient evidence of significant hidden assets or wilful dissipation. The husband's business investments, though risky and ultimately loss-making, were not reckless in the legal sense. The assets were to be divided equally, with the wife receiving all non-Russian liquid/property assets and half the proceeds of the Italian property, and the husband retaining the Russian business assets and associated risks. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife for any French tax liability and to pay for the children's education and maintenance. Wells sharing of illiquid Russian business...

Parties
Applicant: AP; First Respondent: ALP; Second Respondent: Krechet Holdings Ltd; Third Respondent: Ardea Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy (matrimonial) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Final orders for division of matrimonial assets and financial remedies granted.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Non Disclosure, Wilful Dissipation, Clean Break, Maintenance Pending Suit, Indemnity for Tax Liability, Wells Sharing
Family Law Financial Remedies Division of Matrimonial Assets Non Disclosure Wilful Dissipation Clean Break Maintenance Pending Suit Indemnity for Tax Liability +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 8 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP

Applicant

ALP

First Respondent

Krechet Holdings Ltd

Second Respondent

Ardea Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy (matrimonial) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the fair division of matrimonial assets following divorce?
  2. 2 Has the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure of assets?
  3. 3 Has there been wilful or reckless dissipation of assets by the husband?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite initial non-disclosure and some misleading conduct by the husband, there was insufficient evidence of significant hidden assets or wilful dissipation. The husband's business investments, though risky and ultimately loss-making, were not reckless in the legal sense. The assets were to be divided equally, with the wife receiving all non-Russian liquid/property assets and half the proceeds of the Italian property, and the husband retaining the Russian business assets and associated risks. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife for any French tax liability and to pay for the children's education and maintenance. Wells sharing of illiquid Russian business...

Court Disposition

Final orders for division of matrimonial assets and financial remedies granted.

Orders

  • Sale of London property with proceeds to wife
  • Sale of Villa Bellissima (Italy) with proceeds divided equally