Damian Garrido QC, Fiona Hay and Michael Gleeson in successful defence of Part III financial remedy claim

7th Nov 2018 | News

Mrs Justice Roberts handed down judgment yesterday in the case of NN v AS & Ors – [2018] EWHC 2973 (Fam).

Damian Garrido QC and Fiona Hay, representing the respondent husband and instructed by Afsana Akhtar of Abbey Law; and Michael Gleeson (led by Tim Amos QC of QEB) representing the second, third and fourth respondents and instructed by James Stewart of Penningtons Manches, were successful in defending all claims of the applicant wife in a Part III claim for financial relief after an overseas divorce and post nuptial settlement.

The wife’s main application under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 was founded on her assertion that the husband had world-wide assets of some USD100m; and focused on 3 London properties and a yacht moored in Egypt all in his sole name (together worth some £8m). She sought to be released from the terms of an earlier agreement reached in Egypt on the grounds that the agreement was not Radmacher compliant.

In March 2018, approximately a year after proceedings were issued and after an unsuccessful FDR, the interveners – the husband’s father and his two sisters – were joined so that they could assert their claim to the beneficial ownership of the properties and the yacht which were the subject of the claim. Specifically, the husband’s father (the second respondent) asserted that the most valuable property (a mortgage-free Central London luxury apartment worth some £5.8m) and the yacht were both held by the husband for him on trust absolutely. The third and fourth respondents (the husband’s sisters) asserted that the two other Central London properties were held on trust by the husband for himself and his sisters in equal shares.

The husband, his father and his sisters were members of a highly successful Egyptian family who all attended the 10-day final hearing before Mrs Justice Roberts in July.

The applicant wife argued that the trust instruments adduced in evidence by the respondents were procured by forgery, alternatively were sham documents. It was further argued that the documents’ metadata was manipulated to falsely show a contemporaneous date of creation. W contended that the respondents’ professional advisers (Egyptian lawyers and accountants) were involved in a conspiracy with the respondents to hide the true beneficial ownership of the London properties.

Mrs Justice Roberts heard oral evidence from all 5 parties, from a hand-writing expert and some of the parties’ professional advisers; and considered issues of gifts, express, resulting and construct trusts in addition to issues relating to the Egyptian agreement. She considered the case of Zimin v Zimina [2017] EWCA 1249 and in particular the impact on the wife of her the costs of the litigation. She upheld the interveners’ defence of their assets and made an order in the terms of the husband’s open proposals which formalised the terms of the Egyptian agreement. She found that where an agreement was Radmacher compliant it was not a legitimate use of the court’s powers “to make good any deficiency in the calculation of future needs in order to address a shortfall which has arisen as a result of litigation costs”.

The judgment can be read here.

Do you have a similar case?

If you would like some help or advice, talk about a similar matter, call our clerks on 020 7353 6961.



Edward Devereux QC and Rob George acted for the parents in the successful appeal in the case of Archie Battersbee

Edward Devereux QC and Rob George, together with Bruno Quintavalle, acted for the parents in the successful appeal in the case of Archie Battersbee. The Court of Appeal, consisting of the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, and King LJ, allowed the appeal against the High Court’s determination that Archie was legally dead, and remitted the case for a re-hearing in relation to the question of whether it is in his best interests for life-sustaining treatment to continue.

We are delighted to announce that Matthew Stott has joined Harcourt Chambers 

Matthew is a family law specialist with extensive knowledge and experience across all fields of family law. He is regularly involved in complex care cases for local authorities, parents and guardians. He has been involved in cases concerning infant deaths, shaken babies, fabricated illness, serious sexual and physical abuse, honour based violence including attempted assassination, forced marriage, unlawful removal from the jurisdiction, serious neglect and cases involving breaches of Human Rights. 

Matthew’s arrival further strengthens our team of experienced, specialist family practitioners, supporting our growing workload and reputation in the field. 

Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors [2022] EWFC 31

Nick Goodwin QC appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Somerset County Council, and Damian Garrido QC on behalf of the Clinical Commissioning Group for Somerset, in protracted High Court litigation relating to breaches of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 (AAR 2005) – specifically a failure by its Agency Decision Maker to adhere to the regulations relating to the provision of medical reports from the Agency Medical Adviser.

In this final judgment, it was decided by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, that although breaches of AAR 2005, reg 15/17 had occurred, an application for a declaration as to the validity of existing placement orders or adoption orders was not required or appropriate, because (a) such orders…


Shortlist close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All