Lord Bragg Granted Divorce

Writer and broadcaster Lord Bragg, 79, and his wife Catherine Haste have been granted a divorce after a 44-year-marriage.

Judge Anne Hudd granted a decree nisi at a 50-second hearing in the Central Family Court in London.

Neither Catherine Haste nor Melvyn Bragg were present at the hearing.

Paperwork showed their marriage was solemnised at a register office in Hampstead in December 1973.

Lord Bragg’s wife had petitioned for divorce on the grounds of “two years’ separation by consent.”

Lord Bragg consented to divorce on the grounds that the marriage had “broken down irretrievably.”

Princess Tessy of Luxembourg represents herself in High Court divorce battle

Princess Tessy of Luxembourg is representing herself at the High Court in London in her divorce trial.


Princess Tessy’s marriage to His Royal Highness, Prince Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume of Luxembourg has come to an end after a ten year marriage.


After their marriage when he was just 19, Prince Louis renounced his succession rights to the throne.

Speaking outside court, the princess did not explain why she had chosen to represent herself.

 In court, she addressed Mr Justice McDonald in English.

The Family Division trial lasted several days.

Mr Justice McDonald is expected to make decisions on how money and assets should be split in the near future.

He said Prince Louis and Princess Tessy, both 32, could be named in media coverage of the case, but ruled to stop the reporting of financial and personal details.


Russian oligarch loses divorce battle

A Russian oligarch immersed in Britain’s most expensive divorce has lost a crucial court battle to avoid paying his ex-wife more than £450m.

Farkhad Akhmedov refused to pay his ex the huge sum after claiming he was already divorced when they lived in Moscow.

After he refused to accept a ruling by a British court that he pay her half his fortune, his ex-wife Tatiana attempted to seize his super yacht Luna in lieu of payment.

At present the £353m yacht is being held at a port in Dubai for the duration of the legal battle over its ownership.

A Russian Court of Appeal rejected Akhmedov’s attempts to prove he was divorced in 2000 in Moscow.

Akhmedov claimed the papers were lost, but the court rejected his appeal saying he had failed to submit ‘sufficient and credible’ evidence over their existence.

Lawyers for Tatiana welcomed the decision by the Moscow Court of Appeal.

Yuri Kuznetsov, acting for Ms Akhmedov in Moscow, said, “We are relieved that this nonsensical claim can finally be put to bed.

“Three courts have now reached the conclusion that the only divorce granted to Ms Akhmedov was that finalised in London in 2016 and the Moscow City Court’s decision is closing the net on his increasingly desperate attempts to avoid accepting that reality.”


Divorce is granted to German woman in UK court

A German woman has been granted a divorce after bringing matrimonial proceedings to England after discovering her husband was having an affair.

Catja Thum issued a divorce petition in England even though Oliver Thum had started separate proceedings in Germany.

The couple, both in their 40s, were at the Court of Appeal in May this year.

Judges ruled in favour of Mrs Thum and the divorce was granted at the Central Family Court in High Holborn London.

Court documents cited Mr Thum’s “unreasonable behaviour” as the reason for the divorce and described the marriage as having “broken down irretrievably.”

A decree nisi was formally granted by District Judge Yvonne Gibson in a hearing that lasted less than a minute.

Ex-husband in contempt of court over unpaid £453m divorce bill

A Russian billionaire has not paid his ex-wife “one cent” of the £453m he was ordered to pay, a court in London has heard.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told the family division of the high court that Farkhad Akhmedov was in contempt of court.

In December 2016 Mr Haddon-Cave ordered Mr Akhmedov to pay his e-wife a 41.5% share of his £1bn-plus fortune.

Hodge Malek QC said, “Not a cent has been paid to Ms Akhmedova. It is clear though that assets have been moved.”

Mr Haddon-Cave said, “Mr Akhmedov in any event remains in contempt of this court. It is Ms Akhmedova who is prejudiced by the continued delay in this case.”

Akhmedova was at the hearing, but her ex-husband was not.

The judge had previously criticised Akhmedov, saying it was apparent that he had taken “numerous elaborate steps” to hide his wealth and evade the enforcement of the judgment, including by “concealing his assets in a web of offshore companies.”


Judge rules couple’s Islamic marriage falls under English law

A High Court judge has decided that an estranged couple’s Islamic faith marriage falls within the scope of English matrimonial law.

Solicitor Nasreen Akhter and businessman Mohammed Shabaz Khan, took part in an Islamic wedding ceremony in a London restaurant in 1998.

Mrs Akhter says the nikah ceremony was conducted by an imam before about 150 guests.

She says Mr Khan became her “husband” and he had considered her his “wife”.

Mrs Akhter said the Islamic faith marriage constituted a valid marriage under English law.

Mr Khan, who wants to stop Ms Akhter staging a fight over money in a London court, disagreed.

Mr Justice Williams has ruled that the marriage falls within the scope of the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act.

However, he has decided that the marriage was “entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage.”

He says the marriage is therefore “void” and says Mrs Akhter is entitled to a decree of nullity.

The judge had analysed the dispute at a recent trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London and has announced his decision in a written ruling.



Unhappy marriage not grounds for divorce

A woman who was seeking a divorce after a 40 year marriage has lost her case.

Supreme court judges “reluctantly” told Tini Owens that she must remain married because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree.

Five judges unanimously upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens, 68, must remain married to Hugh Owens, 80.

The supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in the majority ruling, “The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being.

“Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances.”

Tini first consulted solicitors about a divorce in 2012. Although she had an affair, the couple continued to live together until February 2015.

In May 2015, Tini petitioned for divorce, claiming her husband had prioritised his work over their home life, that their marriage was a loveless one and that she had grown apart from him.

Hugh denied the allegations.

Lord Wilson noted in the judgment that Tini would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple will have been separated for five years and she will be eligible for a divorce without consent or evidence of fault.






Court rules against excess divorce payments

The Supreme Court has ruled that a man does not have to increase the maintenance payments to his former wife, 16 years after their divorce.

Last year Graham Mills was ordered by the Court of Appeal to increase monthly maintenance payments to his former wife, Maria, from £1,100 per month to £1,441 for life as she was “unable to support her basic needs.”

However, the Supreme Court has overturned that decision, saying it was Mrs Mill’s decisions that left her without capital and increased the cost of her basic needs.

After their divorce settlement in 2002, Mrs Mills was given a lump sum to buy a house mortgage-free. She managed her finances poorly and “unwisely” traded up to live in more upmarket properties, leaving her with a mortgage and without any remaining capital.

Mrs Mills is subsequently living in rented accommodation and asked for her maintenance payments to be increased.

Ex-wife wants former husband jailed over £2m divorce debt after he spent £80,000 on his latest wedding

A woman says she wants her ex-husband jailed after he spent more than £80,000 on his latest wedding even though he claimed he cannot afford to pay her.

Sarah Rogan said her ex-husband Grant Rogan should be committed to prison for breaching an agreement made following the breakdown of their 10-year marriage.

Ms Rogan has suggested that Mr Rogan is wilfully refusing to pay the money he owes which amounts to more than £2 million.

Mr Rogan, 63, claimed he cannot afford to pay his ex-wife, despite spending more than £80,000 on his latest wedding.

A judge analysed preliminary issues in the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Holman indicated that decisions would be made after a further hearing later in the year.

He said Mr Rogan had agreed to pay Ms Rogan, who was Mr Rogan’s second wife, £5 million in instalments four years ago.

Mr Rogan had also agreed to hand over £8,000 a month alimony pending the full payment of the £5 million.

Mr Justice Holman said, “On the face of it, it is very contumelious. To fail to pay wife number two but to go out and spend large amounts of money on wife number three. The clear inference is that the husband chose to prioritise making considerable expenditure on these two weddings rather than pay the maintenance.”


Ex-wife receives £115MILLION in one of UK’s biggest ever divorce settlements

An ex-wife has been granted £115million in one of the UK’s biggest ever divorce settlements.

The woman and her former husband cannot be named for legal reasons after Justice Baker concluded there was “little if any” public interest in identifying the chief executive of a company behind a “very well-known product.”

The case was heard at private family court hearings in London.

Justice Baker said the ex-wife wanted a £230 million lump sum but her businessman ex-husband, who is in his early 50s, offered just £20 million.

The judge said, “Their story is therefore typical of countless other couples whose cases come before the family court.

“What makes their case unusual is that the husband is an extremely successful businessman.

“Although he is not himself a well-known public figure, his products are widely used by millions of people across the world.”

Lawyers representing them argued that publicity would lead to a “serious interference” in their everyday life.