Financial Disclosure in Ancillary Relief and White v Withers LLP
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
In ancillary relief or financial settlement proceedings, concerns can arise over whether a spouse is being fully open about their financial assets and interests. However, such concerns do not allow a spouse to help themselves to documents belonging to the other, particularly where those documents are subject to legal privilege (e.g. letters to or from solicitors), documents that require a password access and confidential business correspondence.
Family Courts may allow documents where the documents are copied and immediately returned but will not allow:-
• Documents obtained by force, e.g. breaking into a safe or locked filing cabinet even if a key is used;
• Keeping of original documents and failing to return them or pass them on to the intended recipient;
• Removal of any disk or similar device holding documents electronically.
Wrongful taking of documents can lead to orders for costs or criminal charges. Copies of documents taken and immediately returned are known as Hildebrand documents following the case of Hildebrand v Hildebrand.
TV Chef Marco Pierre White recently succeeded in his appeal against the striking out of his claim against his estranged wife’s solicitors. The chef alleged that his wife had been told by her solicitors, Withers LLP, to take documents belonging to him. These documents included a letter from his daughter from a previous marriage and a publicity contract he was due to sign.
Withers LLP argued Mr White’s claim was an abuse of process and an attempt to cause his wife stress as she had alleged that he had said he would hide his assets so she “wouldn’t get a penny.” Mr White denied this. The solicitors also maintained that they had advised Mrs White that she was only entitled to take copies of documents provided she did not break into her husband’s property to obtain them. However, when Withers LLP produced the documents, some were found to be originals, not copies and included documents that Mr White had not seen until they were produced in court. One of these documents was a contract for publicity Mr White had agreed to do which meant he’d had to make a trip to the offices of the company concerned and read, agree and sign a copy of the contract there and then, instead of having time to consider the original contract which he had not received. The Court of Appeal was particularly concerned about a letter from his daughter from a previous marriage which had not been returned so preventing Mr White responding to his daughter’s requests in the letter so allowed the appeal.
