John Hooper & Co

Solicitors

Newsletter 24 – Maintenance and disclosure

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Maintenance

In the recent case of Vaughan v Vaughan, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that where there are competing claims by a current wife and a former spouse for a share of a husband’s income, the Court must strike a balance between the husband’s continuing obligations towards the former spouse and the need to provide reasonably for his wife and present family. The Judge at first instance had unfairly favoured the second wife.

In the Vaughan case there was just one former spouse and a wife but in the modern world there could be two or more former spouses (and children of previous relationships) who have competing claims upon a husband’s income and it will be a very difficult task for a Court to try to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot.

Documents

When married couples split up there is often a consequential loss of trust and a belief that the other party may not provide full disclosure of their financial circumstances. Many resort to “self help” remedies to obtain documentary information about their spouse’s assets and investments. In times gone by, this might have involved the photocopying of bank statements and investment details which are left in the home by the other party.

More recently such information might be held in a more secure electronic format – in hard drives or on memory sticks.

The wrongful interception of documents can lead to criminal charges and/or civil claims. So what is permissible and what could lead to further action? This issue was what the Judges in Imerman v Imerman had to consider.

A large amount of information about the husband’s finances was stored on computer. The wife’s brothers shared business interests with Mr Imerman and had access to his computer. One of the brothers accessed the information and Mr Imerman sought injunctions to require the return of all the documents. Mr Imerman pursued proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court and matrimonial financial proceedings ensued in the Family Division of the High Court. Unfortunately, the two Courts took two different views and the case is destined for an appeal hearing in the Court of Appeal very shortly.

In the meantime, in simple terms, the position appears to be that documents which are left around by a party or are easily accessible may be copied; documents which are obtained by computer hacking, stealth or from a password protected computer may lead to restraint proceedings and costs Order.

Hopefully the Court of Appeal will give clear guidance on this point to divorcing couples and practitioners in the near future.

May 2010

go to: News Contents Page

__________________

__________________