England and Wales Case Law

Treo Noal GP S.à r.l & Ors v Stefan Emanuel Kowski & Ors

The court held that disclosure should be ordered on all key pleaded issues, applying the principles of proportionality and relevance under PD 57AD, and rejected inclusion of peripheral or non-material issues. Appropriate disclosure models were determined for each issue based on the nature and significance of the issue and the parties' positions.

Source excerpt

• Disclosure
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Bribery
• Valuation of assets
• Fund management

Read case analysis

BY v CG (No. 3: Costs)

BY v CG (No. 3: Costs) [2026] EWFC 50 (03 March 2026)

The court ordered H to pay W £79,000 towards costs in these financial remedy proceedings, mainly because of a knowingly inaccurate Form E disclosure, but otherwise made no order.

• Financial remedies
• Costs orders
• Litigation conduct
• Non-disclosure
• Expert evidence
• Open offers

Read case analysis

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors [2026] EWHC 487 (Comm) (26 February 2026)

Commercial Court disclosure guidance hearing applying PD 57AD to disputed issues on fraud, bribery, reliance, valuation, and ESG concerns.

• Disclosure
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Bribery
• Valuation of assets
• Fund management

Read case analysis

Mario Michael v Stalo Michael

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in a financial remedy case, upholding the trial judge’s treatment of potential tax liability and asset valuations.

• Financial remedies
• Trusts
• Tax liability
• Valuation of assets
• Conduct in matrimonial proceedings
• Financial-remedy

Read case analysis

IN v CH

IN v CH [2025] EWFC 265 (08 July 2025)

Financial remedies dispute after divorce involving war-hit business wealth, disputed asset valuations, and alleged dissipation. The court ordered a lump sum, housing provision, and child maintenance.

• Financial remedies
• Ancillary relief
• Asset division
• Spousal maintenance
• Child maintenance
• Valuation of assets

Read case analysis

Linda McCracken v Crown Prosecution Service

The High Court refused to discharge or vary a restraint order over Linda McCracken’s property, finding a real risk of dissipation if she sold her share below market value.

• Restraint orders
• Confiscation orders
• Duty of full and frank disclosure
• Valuation of assets
• Risk of dissipation
• Restraint-orders

Read case analysis

McCracken v Crown Prosecution Service

McCracken v Crown Prosecution Service [2025] EWHC 604 (Admin) (07 March 2025)

The High Court refused to discharge a restraint order over a home, finding no material non-disclosure and a real risk of dissipation if the share were sold below market value.

• Restraint orders
• Confiscation orders
• Full and frank disclosure
• Risk of dissipation
• Valuation of assets
• Restraint-orders

Read case analysis

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

The court refused to grant permission for the sale of the aircraft at this stage due to unresolved concerns about the independence of the purchaser, the adequacy and independence of the valuation and marketing process, and the significant reduction in value from previous valuations. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the transaction was at a proper market value or that the purchaser was independent. The application could be reconsidered if a proper independent valuation or higher offer is produced.

Source excerpt

• Freezing orders
• Asset disposal
• Interlocutory relief
• Valuation of assets

Read case analysis

Clare Kennedy & Ors v Fonds Rusnano Capital SA

The High Court allowed administrators to sell fixed charge assets free of security under paragraph 71, finding the disposal would aid administration and the price was proper.

• Administration of insolvent companies
• Sale of secured assets
• Sanctions compliance
• Valuation of assets
• Pre-pack administration
• Insolvency-law

Read case analysis

Kennedy & Ors v Fonds Rusnano Capital SA

Kennedy & Ors v Fonds Rusnano Capital SA [2025] EWHC 112 (Ch) (24 January 2025)

The High Court allowed administrators to sell fixed charge assets free of security, finding the sale likely promoted administration and met the market value requirement.

• Administration
• Disposal of secured assets
• Sanctions compliance
• Pre-pack sale
• Valuation of assets
• Secured creditor rights

Read case analysis