A top Liverpool law firm has warned bosses that they could find their offices raided in the hunt for divorce evidence.
DWF lawyers highlighted how attempts to uncover proof of the full extent of assets could increase after the Court of Appeal recommended that people should apply for search and seize orders in divorce proceedings if they believe their spouse is concealing assets.
DWF’s family law partner, Pauline McNamara, said: “There has been an increase in the number of spouses going to extreme lengths to access their partner’s private documents and emails to prove that assets have been hidden.
“However, the Court of Appeal has ruled that each spouse has a right to privacy of their confidential information, and their partner isn't entitled to know their financial dealings simply by virtue of their marriage.
“The Court says that there is a proper process that must be exhausted and suggests that if concealment of assets is suspected, the spouse should apply for a search and seize order, known as an ‘Anton Piller’ order.
“This isn’t attractive for either party. The applicant faces inevitable stress and high costs of a secretive and pre-emptive application, with the prospect of also paying their spouse’s costs if the suspicion of concealment is unfounded.
“For the suspect, they are arguably exposed to a far greater invasion of privacy than they might have experienced in the historically typical scenario of one party photocopying private financial papers.
“Would a successful business person prefer their spouse to photocopy their private papers and give them to their solicitor or be confronted by a raid on their office for evidence?
“Unless the Supreme Court reviews this decision and considers the practical ramifications for the majority of cases, Anton Piller orders are the recommended remedy.
“Clarification from the Supreme Court cannot come soon enough.”
The Court of Appeal’s recommendation follows the Imerman v Tchenguiz case in which a wife’s brothers hacked into a computer to copy her husband’s confidential information, running to about 250,000 pages.
Previously, wives and husbands relied on guidelines from the ‘Hildebrand’ case to secretly obtain and use documents in divorce proceedings.
But Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: “Nothing in the so-called ‘Hildebrand rules’ can be relied upon in justification of, or as providing a defence to, conduct which would otherwise be criminal or actionable.”
Pauline McNamara concluded: “If there is an issue as to whether a spouse is providing full and frank disclosure of their circumstances in the divorce process, it is vital that they seek specialised advice.
“Similarly, those on the receiving end of a search and seize order need to know their rights if wrongly accused.”
Post a comment