So what do you know? Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244 wasn’t quite what it was cooked up to be.
HILDEBRANDED
So what do you know? Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244 wasn’t quite what it was cooked up to be. The so-called Hildebrand Rules had encouraged parties to ancillary relief applications to access documents belonging to their spouses whether or not they were confidential, provided force was not used. Once access had been gained, the obtaining spouse had the thumbs-up to retain and use copies—though not the originals—but the copies were to be disclosed when a questionnaire was served or in response to an earlier request. It transpires that the Hildebrand Rules are pukka enough about when the accessed documents are to be handed over but, as for the rest, forget them!
And so Hildebrand is not—and watch our lips—authority for the proposition that a spouse may in circumstances that would otherwise be unlawful, take, copy and then retain copies of confidential documents in ancillaryreliefland. The Court of Appeal has decreed accordingly in Imerman v Tchenguiz and others
