Brenda Long's Analysis: Prest v Prest

The spouse who fails to make full and frank disclosure of his assets and/or tries to shield assets from claims by a spouse by transferring them to a third party is no stranger to the divorce courts.  Over time Family Judges have attempted to redress any resulting unfairness by adopting what might be described as a ‘broad brush and pragmatic approach'. 

Examples of this were a) the previously permitted exercise of ‘self help' in terms of reading copying and relying on documents belonging to the recalcitrant discloser (since disallowed following the decision in Imerman) and b) a willingness to take the wide view on what amounted to an ‘entitlement' to property under s24(1)(a) Matrimonial Causes Act particularly when companies and/or trusts are involved.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Prest v Prest and Others reminds us that the less strict approach which Family Judges have been minded to adopt is not supported by their Chancery brethren.  In Prest Patten and Rimer LJs (Thorpe LJ...

Read the full article here.