Jamie Wilson reports on uncertain times in a post Imerman era
It has now been four months since the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling in Tchenguiz v Imerman and Others [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2010] All ER (D) 320 (Jun), yet there is still a great sense of unease among matrimonial practitioners about the fallout from the decision and how, in reality, Hildebrand type cases can be run.
The old “self-help” principles have been dismantled and it is now the case that a husband and wife are each entitled to privacy against the other. Not only is there now a greater chance of one party’s claims being defeated (as the opportunity to find that “telling” document is restricted), but there is the added risk of both civil and criminal sanctions for both the client and his or her legal representatives.
In light of the decision, matrimonial practitioners need to establish parameters within which ancillary relief cases can now be managed, and confidential documents dealt with, in a post Imerman climate.
It is firstly important to identify the extent to which
