Divorce and Financial Remedy Order
Divorce and Financial Remedy Order
In 2020 Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak divorced. On 24 March 2020, Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak were made subject to a Financial Remedy Order in the Family Court, which:
defines in paragraph 6 “Click Group Holdings Limited” (i.e., Holdings) as a company in which Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak were “equal shareholders and directors”;
in paragraph 15 declares that they “agree that they are and will continue to be equal shareholders and directors of Click Group Holdings Limited”, and that “the parties[’] current household income is derived from the income each party receives by way of salary and dividends from” Holdings, and that they would:
“continue to receive a salary and dividends from the company to the extent that they are then each able to independently meet their own outgoings and income needs moving forward, and specifically once the family home [i.e., 46 St Quintin Avenue] has been divided or sold”,
as set out further in the order;
in paragraph 16, declares that Mrs Bandak would keep her assets in Belarus which had not been disclosed, but which were believed to be in excess of £1,000,000;
in paragraph 17, declares that Mr Emmett will occupy the basement flat of 46 St Quintin Avenue as his main residence;
in paragraph 21, notes the existence of the November 2019 Facility Agreement under the 2019 Charge, and that Mr Emmett undertook to discharge the November 2019 Facility Agreement;
orders, by consent, in paragraph 23, that 46 St Quintin Avenue shall be held by Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak as “beneficial tenants in common in equal shares”.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background
- Corben Mews Facility Agreement
- Guarantee
- Solicitor’s Certificate
- Wider factual matrix
- November 2019 Facility Agreement
- 2019 Charge
- Divorce and Financial Remedy Order
- May 2021 Facility Agreement
- Default
- Default Judgment
- The Application
- Submissions
- Second Defendant
- Claimant
- Legal framework
- Real prospect of success
- Some other good reason
- Undue influence
- The test
- Discussion and analysis
- Is there a presumed relationship of undue influence of Mr Emmett over Mrs Bandak?
- Was the Guarantee to Mrs Bandak’s manifest disadvantage?
- Was CPF One put on inquiry?
- Mrs Bandak acted of her own free will
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)