Moher v Moher
[2019] EWCA Civ 1482:-
“
88. When undertaking this task the court will, obviously, be entitled to draw such adverse inferences as are justified having regard to the nature and extent of the party's failure to engage properly with the proceedings. However, this does not require the court to engage in a disproportionate enquiry. Nor, as Lord Sumption said, should the court "engage in pure speculation". As Otton LJ said in
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history, including the litigation history
- Sears Tooth
- Evidence filed in support of the respective cases
- The respective Open Proposals
- The parties’ Case Summaries
- Ilott v The Blue Cross and others
- Lilford (Lord) v Glynn
- Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989
- Haroutunian v Jennings
- Re P (Child: Financial Provision)
- Ilott
- DN v UD
- Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
- Agbaje
- More general matters of law
- Moher v Moher
- Baker v Baker
- Prest v Petrodel
- Duxbury
- The evidence of HRH Princess Haya
- The evidence of Director 1
- My conclusions on the issues of principle
- Quantum
- Al-Khatib v Masry
- The security budget
- General maintenance
- The costs of security for the children as adults and the level of security
- Schedule A
- HRH’s home near Kensington Palace
- Castlewood
- Leisure