DR v GR and others [2013] EWHC 1196 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 230 (May)
In Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2013] 1 All ER 795 (Prest), the Court of Appeal had held that the previous authorities as to the scope of s 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 had been wrong. The companies before the court contended that the effect of Prest was that the view taken in Hope v Krecji [2012] All ER (D) 215 (Jul) as to the scope of the s 24(1)(c) powers waswrong also. They contended that interposition of the companies meant that the court could not directly deal with the assets at the bottom of the tree. The court ruled that if the companies’ argument as to the effect of Prest was right, the jurisdiction would be almost totally emasculated. That was because it was only in rare cases that the settlement directly owned the underlying assets. In the great majority of cases there was an interposed company and it was usually offshore. Further, the language of the two sub-sections was completely different
