LONDON: Court of Appeals re-thinks Hildebrand rule and bans divorce espionage in "big money" cases

LONDON: Oh, those Brits! If you practice divorce law, it seems that London is the place to be. Always drama. Always theatrics. They don’t call London the “Divorce Capital of the World” for nothing.
Today’s news coming from the Financial Times, involves a case we’ve blogged about on Divorce Saloon The Tchenguiz Imerman divorce. In Tchenguiz, the wife and her brothers basically broke into her husband’s computers and stole data which helped her prove his wealth (guess she felt he would try to hide his wealth if she didn’t act stealthily).
Under the Hilderbrand case, seems that has been okay in UK big money divorce cases. Spouses, usually the wives, could legally obtain the information they needed by whatever means necessary. I guess. But after Tchenguiz, that will change. The “espionage” was just too much for the court to handle and so Tchenguiz will now spoil it for all the rich divorcees in London who need to prove that their spouse is hiding his or her wealth because the court has ruled that in order to get the dirt on a spouse’s finances, the spy spouse needs to go through the legal channels. That means make a motion to the court compelling their spouse to disclose all assets.¬†Failure to do it the legal way could subject said spouse to criminal charges.
Image credit