"impressive silks and juniors are praised for their strength in depth"
Serle Court “offers a variety of skill sets that others can’t provide, and houses some of the biggest names at the Bar”
Area of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In AF v SF (Dynastic Trust: Needs-based awards) [2020] 1 F.L.R. 121, Dakis Hagen QC and James Weale represented the successful respondent husband before Moor J in complex matrimonial proceedings concerning a wealthy aristocratic family. The case raised a novel question concerning the application to family trusts of the principle established in Blight v Brewster [2012] 1 WLR 2841 (in which James had also acted).
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2018] EWFC 23, Dakis Hagen QC represented the wife in a case in which Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, as part of satisfaction of England's largest divorce award, transferred to her ownership of a superyacht allegedly worth $487m, pierced the corporate veil of a Liechtenstein anstalt, set aside a number of dispositions under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and extended a worldwide freezing order.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In HRH Louis Prince of Luxembourg v HRH Tessy Princess of Luxembourg [2018] 2 FLR 480, Emma Hargreaves acted as Chancery counsel for the wife before Macdonald J in respect of financial remedy proceedings in which issues including reporting restrictions and the right to respect for private life were addressed.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In ND v SD & Ors [2018] 1 FLR 1489, Emma Hargreaves acted as Chancery counsel for the husband before Roberts J in respect of preliminary issues arising in the context of financial remedy proceedings, including whether a foreign trust was a sham, whether shares had been validly transferred into the trust and whether the transfers should be set aside under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Versteegh v Versteegh (reported as W v W [2017] EWHC 123 (Fam)), Daniel Lightman QC, representing the husband in high-value matrimonial proceedings, persuaded Sir Peter Singer that he should transfer shares in family companies, rather than pay a lump sum, to the wife, and that the shares she should be given should be ordinary, not preference, shares.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Hagen v Hagen [2017], Dakis Hagen QC and Charlotte Beynon acted for the respondent husband in the substantial and much publicised divorce involving the family behind Viking River Cruises, in financial remedy proceedings in the High Court. Alan Boyle QC, Nicholas Harrison and Jonathan McDonagh acted for the daughter and Emma Hargreaves appeared unled for another respondent in these proceedings. Jonathan Adkin QC and Adil Mohamedbhai had appeared for a corporate party at an earlier stage of the litigation. The case settled confidentially mid-trial.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In A v A; A v Line Trust Corporation Corporation & Ors (2017/CACIV/01) (Gibraltrar), Dakis Hagen QC, Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and James Weale represented the applicant and Richard Wilson QC represented the respondent husband in one of highest value divorce cases in recent years. The dispute involved two complex overseas trust structures and generated six claims in three different jurisdictions (England, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands). The proceedings in Gibraltar concerned the court’s jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the validity of actions taken by the trustee of a Gibraltar trust when those issues had been raised in English matrimonial proceedings and gave rise to complex issues of private international law.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
Emma Hargreaves acted as Chancery counsel for the husband in financial remedy proceedings before Moor J, involving an offshore foundation and issues of "nuptial settlements", in which the wife alleged the husband was worth over £95 million but was awarded around £2 million following trial. Jonathan McDonagh acted for the Husband's father.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In C v C, Daniel Lightman QC represented the son in a successful application to set aside an ex parte order obtained by the husband in matrimonial proceedings which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies. In a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), Roberts J held that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to make such an order under either section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Re Poon [2015] JCA 109, Richard Wilson QC assisted Jersey advocates in an appeal against the Royal Court’s decision to approve the exclusion of a beneficiary following divorce proceedings in Hong Kong.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
Daniel Lightman QC represented Mrs Prest, the successful appellant, in a landmark Supreme Court decision on the circumstances in which the court can pierce the corporate veil to make orders requiring the transfer to a former wife of assets and property held by offshore companies connected to the husband.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735, the leading authority in the Family Courts in respect of freezing injunction principles and without notice applications, Dakis Hagen QC represented the husband before Mostyn J.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Granatino v Radmacher [2011] 1 AC 534, Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) represented the successful respondent in a landmark appeal heard by nine judges in the Supreme Court which concerned the weight to be given to a pre-nuptial agreement in ancillary relief proceedings.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Charman v Charman [2005] 1 FLR 1246, the leading authority on the treatment of a discretionary trust as a “resource” within the meaning of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Alan Boyle QC and Dakis Hagen QC represented the husband in the Court of Appeal and Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) also acted for the husband on the wider international elements.
Read More
