Morning:
5°c
Divorce husbands’ wealth can stay a secret in landmark ruling
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent29 Jul 2010
A millionaire dubbed the “Man from Del Monte” today won a landmark victory in a £350 million divorce battle.
The decision in the Court of Appeal removes protection given to thousands of divorcing couples and has major implications for people fighting over hidden wealth and documents.
Until today a husband or wife who came across information revealing hidden wealth could copy it and put it before the courts. But the Court of Appeal reversed that principle in a case involving Vivian Imerman, 53, who made millions from selling the Del Monte fruit company.
He won an appeal against property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, who took thousands of documents about his wealth to help their sister Lisa — Mr Imerman's wife. Lawyers described the judgment as “ground-breaking”.
The couple, who are in the midst of a divorce, signed a pre-nuptial agreement after their 2001 marriage. She filed for divorce in 2008.
A bitter battle broke out over her demand for £100 million of his fortune because since the pre-nup deal he had made a fortune from selling the spirits company Whyte & Mackay. The two brothers obtained thousands of documents about his wealth from a computer at Mayfair offices Robert Tchenguiz had invited Mr Imerman to share.
They attempted to use information about his multi-million-pound estate at her divorce hearing. Robert Tchenguiz said he was concerned to protect his sister's interests and feared that Mr Imerman would try to hide his assets from her.
In July last year a High Court judge ordered the material to be returned and not disclosed to anyone else.
Today that order was confirmed by the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, sitting with Lord Justices Moses and Munby.
They decided that the “Hildebrand rules” — a long-standing acceptance that divorcing couples can secretly obtain and use otherwise private documents in family court proceedings — have “no legal basis”. They stated: “Nothing in the so-called Hildebrand rules can be relied upon in justification or provide a defence to conduct which would otherwise be criminal or actionable.” Legal experts say today's ruling will lead to a sharp rise in new court action in divorces where husbands or wives suspect each other of concealing assets.
Mr Imerman's solicitor Frances Hughes said he was delighted “to have succeeded in a long battle for the return of his confidential and privileged documents.”
Lisa Tchenguiz said the judges had given her husband every incentive to lie and hide his wealth. The “ace from a sleeve” which wives have been able to play in producing documents to prove the lies has now been ruled inadmissible, she said.
Her solicitor Diana Parker said: “Lisa Tchenguiz is prohibited from saying what her husband claims he is worth, compared with what is in the public domain as to the wealth he created during their marriage.
“But she is not gagged from saying that she finds the Court of Appeal decision a cheats' charter.”
Vivian Imerman said: “I was determined that my private papers could not be stolen and the perpetrators get away with it without any retribution.”
The ruling could have a significant impact on the long-running battle between businessman Scott Young and his estranged wife Michelle.
Reader views (7)
Having been married to a gold digger...and currently going through the motions of a divorce. I only know too well to what extent some people will go to in order to achieve financial security. For once, this is a positive step in protecting men and women as it equally applies to women too. This ruling may help people in the 'once bitten - twice shy' camp in that they may now seriously think about marrying again! As someone close to me commented recently, "If I was a man and got shafted during my divorce ..why would I ever want to marry again?"..That was from a woman. Love that woman!
- Play Jackal Bijugate, London, 01/08/2010 13:52
Report abuse
The usual nasty, sexist comments posted here from all the usual nasty, sexist posters. If a man lies in an attempt to cheat his wife then what that does make him? A greedy, selfish liar? There are reasons why marriages break down - and not infrequently the reasons are the extremely unpleasant behaviour on the part of men. I know - I was married to one once (and yes, I did take my share of the profits accrued during the marriage - not being a slave or a chattel I was entitled to them).
- bethtisdoesn't getposted, London UK, 30/07/2010 07:56
Report abuse
No mention of the "brothers" being done for theft. Why not? It is OK to steal information from someone's computer in a premeditated act of theft? There was a time when nicking info from a waste bin was a crime. What can be more blatant than this? Anyone doing business with people with ethics like that should be VERY careful.
- coylum, Vancouver, Canada, 29/07/2010 17:35
Report abuse
About time, this will send a clear signal to nasty little gold diggers. How on earth she thought she was entitled to a £100 millon for 8yrs of marriage is laughable. Did she really contribute anything to the running of her husbands company? I doubt it
- david, london, 29/07/2010 14:10
Report abuse
Lovely ornage juice!
- Jimmy, London, 29/07/2010 13:56
Report abuse
Crikey, how did he get landed with her ? Do better down my local on a Friday night!!
- Kevin Bollox, London, 29/07/2010 13:53
Report abuse
I would have given her a £100 million just to P-Off.
She has more plastic in her Bra, than the Man from Del Monte has in his wallet.
- mickinlondon, london, 29/07/2010 13:25
Report abuse
