Prest v Petrodel
, at [85]:
entitled to draw such inferences as can properly be drawn from all the available material, including what has been disclosed, judicial experience of what is likely to be being concealed and the inherent probabilities, in deciding what the facts are."
Tax
56.
HRH’s legal team has, for many months, relied on standard
- 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