Imerman v Tchenguiz and others, Imerman v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2010] All ER (D) 320 (Jul)
The courts could not condone the illegality of self-help consisting of breach of confidence because it was feared that the other side would behave unlawfully and conceal that which would be disclosed.
The wider Hildebrand rules (which had no basis on anything decided in Hildebrand) were not good law. The so-called Hildebrand rules, namely that the family courts would not penalise the taking, copying and immediate return of documents but do not sanction the use of any force to obtain the documents, were not justified in law, whether on the basis of lawful excuse, self-help, public interest, or indeed any other basis.
Nevertheless, as decided in Hildebrand, it was and remained the obligation of a wife who had obtained access to her husband’s documents unlawfully or clandestinely to disclose that fact promptly, either if asked by her husband’s solicitors or at the latest when she served her questionnaire. In ancillary relief proceedings whilst the court could admit evidence confidential to
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
