Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 1194 (KB) (19 May 2026)
The High Court refused stays of enforcement, upheld Part 36 costs consequences, and awarded interest and a payment on account after enforcing Russian judgments.
The High Court refused a stay of enforcement pending appeal or Russian bankruptcy and made Part 36 costs and interest orders after the claimant won recognition and enforcement.
Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 439 (KB) (27 February 2026)
High Court recognition and enforcement case concerning two Russian judgments arising from a post-nuptial agreement dispute between former spouses.
High Court Part 8 claim to recognise and enforce Russian judgments about a post-nuptial agreement. Public policy, abuse of process, and natural justice objections failed.
PN v SA [2025] EWFC 141 (23 May 2025)
The court upheld the 2021 post-nuptial agreement, rejected the 2023 settlement agreement, and ordered an equal division of the parties’ wealth with tax and clean-break provisions.
The court upheld the 2021 post-nuptial agreement, rejected the 2023 settlement for undue pressure and lack of deed, and ordered a broadly equal asset split with a clean break.
The applicant has surmounted the low bar for leave to apply for financial relief, taking her account of the circumstances surrounding the post-nuptial agreement as accurate for these purposes. England and Wales is an appropriate venue given the parties' connections and assets. The application should not be severed into separate hearings, and financial remedy proceedings will proceed.
Source excerpt
OM v DM [2024] EWFC 426 (05 December 2024)
The Family Court granted the wife leave to seek financial relief after an overseas divorce, finding the threshold met and declining to sever the post-nuptial agreement issues.
The post-nuptial agreement, while valid and freely entered into, is unfair in its effect as it leaves the respondent without adequate income and does not meet her reasonable needs, especially given her primary care of the child and lack of income. The court must assess needs and distribute assets accordingly, taking the agreement into account but not being bound by it.
Source excerpt
The judge was correct to treat the case as a 'needs-light' award, factoring in the post-nuptial agreement, litigation misconduct, and costs orders, but erred in limiting housing provision to Greece and in treating future dividends as capital recoupment rather than income; the appeal is allowed to the extent of increasing housing and maintenance provision, but the wife is not responsible for the husband's legal overspend.
Source excerpt
Explore more
