A woman who owns two Lamborghinis, three Aston Martins, a Porsche and a Mercedes among assets believed to be worth more than £21million has been fined £50,000 for contempt of court in a long-running marital dispute .
Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith described the woman’s failure to comply with court orders – about disclosing details of her finances – as “serious” and warranting a “substantial fine”. But he said the woman’s health and her latest financial situation merited a reduction in the £100,000 fine he would normally have considered. In a separate judgment, the Commissioner, sitting with Jurats Jerry Ramsden and Andrew Cornish, rejected his wife’s request to set aside the Royal Court’s ‘final judgment’ in the case – dividing the matrimonial assets – on the grounds that they are undervalued. of more than £9million. As part of the court settlement, the man, whose personal assets are worth just under £770,000, was awarded a 37 per cent share of the fortune, or around £8.1 million.
But he said he should receive an additional £3.4million because the true value of the assets was higher than the court’s calculation. In a previous hearing, the court said it did not consider the woman a “reliable witness”. “In evidence, he rarely gives a straight answer to the questions put to him, tends to give an interview to the court on issues that he thinks are important and decides what is appropriate or not. He is free to hurt the respondent, describing him as financially illiterate, barely able to use a laptop, and of low caliber. When he was not on the witness stand, he would hear backlash for anything he said he disagreed with, so he walked out twice of the court at that time. where he will be returned,” the court recorded in its earlier ruling. . But although at a hearing last month, Commissioner Clyde-Smith spoke about the “seriousness of the violations [de la femme]— which included contempt of court — he said there was a “public interest” in bringing the legal proceedings, which took place between 2017 and 2020, to completion, and the court dismissed the claim. argument that any non-disclosure by the woman justified the cancellation of the agreement. “Since these proceedings began in 2021 to overturn the final judgment, significant costs have now been incurred in Jersey, Guernsey and France. If the final judgment is overturned, the parties can expect to be involved in approx. two years of costly litigation.”said the commissioner.
Referring to the woman’s health condition, the lack of evidence regarding the value of the assets and the fact that the court’s final judgment nevertheless reflected what he described as the “big picture” of finances, the commissioner Clyde-Smith wondered if further inquiry should be made at this point. ” The final judgment has now, albeit with difficulty, been fully enforced, with assets transferred and/or sold and the question arises whether it is proportionate to set aside the final judgment so that a discovery exercise and essentially speculative investigations can be carried out. The question also arises as to whether it is now possible, given the passage of time and the poor health of the petitioner, to begin such an exercise”, did he declare. In rejecting the husband’s summons, the commissioner said that while the temporary injunctions against the wife would be lifted, the court’s order would remain in place to deal with any issues related to costs and damages. The identities of the islanders involved in this case were not identified in both court rulings.
Photo credit: DR
[cc] Breizh-info.com2023, transmits without copy and distribution subject to citation and link to the original source