Camilla Baldwin
Latest Review
Profile
Contact
Reviews
Case Studies
Wife’s application for a freezing injunction rejected
Camilla acts for the husband who is an UHNW of Latvian and Ukrainian descent. The assets involved in the case are worth in the region of ¬£30-40 million. The wife recently issued divorce and financial proceedings in England. The husband has then provided documentation evidencing that the parties in fact divorced in many years ago in Latvia. The wife initially maintained that she had no knowledge of such Latvian divorce. She said that she did not recall signing any divorce documents. Determination of the suit was important in terms of the financial litigation, namely whether proceedings would be brought either under Part III Matrimonial Family Proceedings Act 1984 or under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The wife finally accepted that the divorce took place almost twenty years ago in Latvia. The wife raised concerns that the husband had an intention to dissipate the only known assets in England. Unfortunately, the husband did not have representation at the time and he ignored all correspondence from the wife’s lawyers, who then threatened to issue an application for a freezing order, failing that they were seeking a notification order. The husband flew in to meet with Camilla Baldwin to discuss the position in relation to the divorce, finances and the threat of a freezing injunction. Two days after being instructed, we received informal notice from the wife’s lawyers of her intention to attend the High Court the next morning in order to seek a freezing injunction against the husband. The terms of the injunction the wife sought to prevent the husband from dealing with his interest in a Latvian company which owned a significant and high profile asset in this country. In the alternative, the wife sought a notification injunction, restraining the husband from dealing with his interests in the UK based asset without giving prior written notice to the wife. The husband was strongly opposed to either such injunction and instructed us to oppose the same. With limited time to prepare, we had to obtain the relevant background information from the client. His asset base and business interests are extensive, with a complex ownership structure. We soon realised that the wife had not understood the ownership of the husband‘s interest in the Latvian company and that she also had significant concerns about the husband‘s intention to dissipate the UK based assets in order to frustrate her claims. At the initial hearing were successful in persuading the applications judge that there was insufficient evidence that the husband would transfer the assets out of the jurisdiction to defeat the wife‘s financial claims. The judge refused to make a freezing or notification injunction, but acknowledged that the husband had a case to answer and a return date was listed seven days later, with the husband being required to file an affidavit in response to wife‘s application in the meantime. This was a great success and the husband was very happy. Prior to the return date, we had three days to take instructions, prepare and finalise an affidavit on behalf of husband. Having considered our evidence and submissions, the judge dismissed the wife‘s application for a freezing injunction and a notification injunction. The husband was thrilled with the result.
Representing a UHNW husband, of Eastern European descent, in relation to divorce and financial proceedings
Last year, Camilla successfully defended an application for a section 37 freezing injunction. Matters have since progressed and the wife has been granted permission by the High Court to proceed with her application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The wife had previously attempted to issue divorce proceedings and make financial claims in England, but was forced to concede that the parties had already divorced abroad in 1999 after we produced the valid divorce documents. The wife claimed that she could not recall signing such documents, but we managed to obtain evidence that she had done so in the presence of a notary in their home country. This was a big victory on behalf of the husband, which should limit the extent of the wife‘s financial claims. This will be determined at the Final Hearing, which is listed to take place in March 2018. The FDA hearing took place in March 2017. A single joint expert was instructed to prepare a valuation report in relation to the husband‘s extensive and complex global business assets, totalling ¬£30 million to ¬£40 million (gross). Upon receipt of the single joint expert report, received days before the FDR hearing in December 2017, we instructed a shadow expert accountant to review the content of the single joint expert‘s report. The single joint expert had prepared a valuation of one of the husband‘s business assets, which no doubt had mathematical integrity, but suggested that this asset was worth ¬£17.185m. This did not begin to reflect the true value on an ‘open market basis‘. The shadow accountant‘s interim findings were that the business assets were worth no more than ¬£8 million. A Daniels v Walker application was therefore issued in order to seek the court‘s permission to rely on the shadow accountant‘s report as evidence in the proceedings. The wife contested the application but, at the eleventh hour, conceded and allowed the report to be admitted as evidence at the final hearing. Presumably, the wife was concerned about the strength of the evidence contained within the shadow accountant‘s report and did not want to lose at court. The case is on-going and the final hearing takes place in March 2018.
Representing the wife, a property developer and full time mother
Camilla represents the wife, a property developer and full time mother. Her husband is an architect. The parties lived in Scotland during the marriage and moved to England in 2011. In 2017 the parties separated. The wife was informed that the husband was intending to issue divorce proceedings in Scotland without her consent or knowledge. This was to limit the wife‘s claims for maintenance as, under Scottish law, the homemaker/ financially dependent spouse only receives maintenance for herself and the children for a maximum of three years. The wife instructed us when she realised and that same day we issued urgent divorce proceedings in London. We successfully seized jurisdiction in England and won the jurisdiction race. During disclosure, the husband claimed to have no money. In fact, he was imminently due to inherit significant wealth as his mother had sadly passed away just prior to the divorce. His mother had owned shares in Coca-Cola and owned a significant amount of real estate in the US, including a well-known American department store. However, the husband‘s inheritance was contained in complex US trust structures and he had failed to provide any disclosure regarding the inheritance and trusts. We issued court proceedings and had to pursue the matter forcefully. At the first court hearing, the husband claimed not to have received any inheritance. However, whilst waiting to see the Judge outside his chambers, pressure was applied and the husband revealed that he had received a lump sum which had been paid into his US savings account the month prior to the hearing. This was disclosed to the Judge and as a result the husband was ordered to pay a substantial amount of interim maintenance to the wife. Further, we successfully sought an order that the husband pay our legal costs. Thereafter we applied to join the trustees to the proceedings given the husband‘s reluctance to engage. This successfully encouraged the husband to make an offer of settlement. After some negotiations, Camilla managed to secure a very favourable financial outcome for the wife and her children.