Andrew Moore reflects upon the trials & tribulations of adverse inferences
In the recent case of NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 180 (Dec), Mostyn J set out clear guidance to assist the courts in drawing adverse inferences following materially deficient disclosure by one party and how it should be applied to the apportionment of the assets between the parties. This judgment is important reading for practitioners, as their requests for the court to draw adverse inferences are likely to have increased in number, and importance, following the cases of White v Withers LLP [2009] EWCA Civ 1122, [2009] All ER (D) 304 (Oct) and Imerman v Tchenquiz & Others [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2011] 1 All ER 555.
The decisions in those cases made it clear that the so-called “Hildebrand rules” were not good law and that unlawful conduct cannot be justified simply because it is feared that full financial disclosure will not be forthcoming. The effect was to clip the wings of litigants who,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
