High profile & important cases

In this section of the Divorce Guide, we examine some of the most important, high profile divorce cases through the lens of our expert opinion.

If you are considering or going through a divorce, click below for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.

BOOK FREE CONSULTATION

Radmacher v Granatino: Making Prenups Enforceable

Vardags successfully represented Katrin Radmacher in the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino, which established that nuptial agreements may now have binding effect in the courts of England and Wales. How radmacher v granatino changed the law on prenups...

FIND OUT MORE

Chai v Peng

The case of former beauty queen Pauline Chai and her businessman husband, Khoo Kay Peng, is one of the largest and most complex to come before the English courts. The couple were married for 43 years, as the Malaysian businessman built up a multi-million pound empire, which...

FIND OUT MORE

Standish v Standish: Sharing Assets

overview In the landmark case of Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, the Court of Appeal applied the largest ever reduction of a financial award in UK divorce history, decreasing the wife’s £45 million award to £25 million. The...

FIND OUT MORE

Young v Young

Overview Young v Young, which became known in the press as the ‘Brewster’s Millions’ case, became a cause célèbre in both the legal world and the media. The case lasted for many years until Vardags took it over for the final financial...

FIND OUT MORE

Quan v Bray

The ‘chinese tigers’ case: how trusts are treated in divorce Quan v Bray, which became known as the ‘Chinese tigers’ case, provides interesting insight into how trusts are dealt with by the courts when considering a financial settlement in divorce...

FIND OUT MORE

White v White

The case of White v White is of significant importance for family law practitioners, as it fundamentally shifted the approach to the division of assets upon divorce. Fairness, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. This is how Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead introduced...

FIND OUT MORE

AM v SS

Legal Services Payment Order - Am v SS When you’re going through the emotional wringer of a divorce, legal fees are the last thing you want to contend with. But there are creative ways to ensure that cash flow doesn’t become a sticking point in these most...

FIND OUT MORE

Williams v Williams

overview We acted for the wife, Abigail Williams, in Williams v Williams. The judge, Mr Justice Moor described this case as “bad a case of non-compliance with court orders as this court has ever seen”. The parties were married for almost 30 years and their...

FIND OUT MORE

Charman v Charman

Charman v Charman was, at the time in 2005, the largest ever contested case in English divorce proceedings, with total assets of £131 million. The wife argued that she should be entitled to 45 percent, with the slight departure from equality representing the...

FIND OUT MORE

Gohil v Gohil & Sharland v Sharland

Gohil and sharland: non-disclosure in divorce In the cases of Gohil v Gohil and Sharland v Sharland, both husbands had intentionally failed in their legal obligation to provide full and frank disclosure of their finances to the court. As a result, the Supreme Court held...

FIND OUT MORE

Barder v Barder

The case of Barder shows the rare circumstances in which a financial award upon divorce can be varied after it has been made. Following the case, such events which justify a variation of a financial award are called ‘Barder’ events. If you’re considering...

FIND OUT MORE

Myerson

The case of Myerson is a further case clarifying the rules in Barder. The husband and wife had divorced shortly before the financial crisis. At that time, their assets were worth around £25 million, around £15 million of which were made up of shares in the...

FIND OUT MORE

Xydhias v Xydhias: What is a Xydhias Agreement?

If you and your spouse have come to an agreement as to how your financial affairs should be sorted upon your divorce, it is advisable to have this formalised in a consent order. However, if your spouse seeks to depart from the agreement you had reached, your agreement may...

FIND OUT MORE

Jones v Jones

The case of Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41 concerned the value of a business in relation to matrimonial proceedings. The parties had met in 1996 and separated in 2006. When they married, the husband owned a business worth around £2 million. By the time they had...

FIND OUT MORE

SS v NS

SS v NS: the shift in approach to spousal maintenance The case of SS v NS is a recent judgment from Mr Justice Mostyn which shows the changing approach of the courts to spousal maintenance. The husband and wife were 40 and 39 respectively, and had been together for 11...

FIND OUT MORE

JL v SL

JL v SL was a case before Mr Justice Mostyn which focused on how the court was to treat inherited wealth in the context of divorce. In the case, the wife had received total inheritance from her mother of £465,000. A portion of this had been paid to the husband for...

FIND OUT MORE

UL v BK

In the case of UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam), the court considered the proper procedure for when a party seeks a freezing order or another emergency, ex parte injunction. Freezing orders are a vital tool in preventing a wealthy party from dissipating assets, but given...

FIND OUT MORE

Y v Z: Non-Disclosure

Non-disclosure is increasingly an issue in ancillary proceedings and it is often down to judicial discretion to establish whether or not it is in the public interest to report on and punish such dishonesty. Vardags represented the father defending an application by the...

FIND OUT MORE

Thomas v Thomas

Thomas v thomas: ‘judicious encouragement’ Thomas v Thomas [1995] 2 FLR 668 has often been cited as the leading authority on the issue of ‘judicious encouragement’ of third parties. In this case, Mr Thomas had taken steps to tie up his...

FIND OUT MORE

Miller v Miller; MacFarlane v MacFarlane

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 is a conjoined appeal case addressing financial provisions made during a divorce. Following the Miller; McFarlane case, the law has evolved from a purely needs-based approach to a more complex...

FIND OUT MORE

Waggott v Waggott

Waggott v waggott: Earning capacity is not an asset to be shared upon divorce The 2018 decision of Waggott v Waggott provides valuable clarification by affirming what many family law practitioners have often grappled with: that earning capacity is not an asset to be...

FIND OUT MORE

Daga v Bangur

Daga v Bangur: Trusts as an available resource in divorce In Daga v Bangur [2018] EWFC 91, the courts explored whether trust funds are available to meet the needs of a separating spouse by virtue of s25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Since these assets are not...

FIND OUT MORE

The information on this website is intended as a guide and does not constitute legal advice. Vardags do not accept liability for any errors in the information on this website, nor any losses stemming from reliance upon the statements made herein. All articles and pages aim to reflect the legal position at time they were published, and may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent developments in the law. Should you require specialist advice, tailored to your situation, please see how Vardags can help you.

Reviews

What should have been the worst year of my life was resurrected by this firm. The Manchester based team of Anne-Marie Bradley and Kate Taylor were exceptional. They treat you as a human being rather than a client. I can’t thank... READ MORE them enough for all their expertise, choice of barrister and expert witness. If I am ever unlucky enough to repeat this horrible episode, they will be my first port of call. Can’t recommend these two enough.

Mark Gallagher

They have definitely lived up to their name of being a top divorce and family law firm.

S. Gasparini

Vardags aren’t cheap, but they are worth it.

Steve

Immediate advice was gratefully received. No hesitation in recommending Vardags.

Stewart Little

I would like to say working with the staff at Vardags was a great support to me at a difficult time of my life but with their support and sensitivity I was able to get through the experience with less stress and ease. If anyone... READ MORE is looking for a good legal team I would recommend Vardags. They may cost a bit more but will give you good service.

Brenda Hart

Vardags provided excellent support to my case, which had a complicated international, cross-jurisdiction component. Within the team, Maria Fiorito was also excellent and very supportive, and was able to effectively liaise with... READ MORE the Italian team of lawyers. I would recommend both Vardags and Maria Fiorito for your case. BR

Brunello Rosa

OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM

Ayesha Vardag

Stephen Bence

Emma Gill

Founder & President

Chief Executive Officer

Managing Partner

Ayesha Vardag

Founder & President

“Ayesha Vardag - Britain's top divorce lawyer.”

The Telegraph

Stephen Bence

Chief Executive Officer

“Dr Stephen Bence is a financial genius.”

Lewis Marks KC

Emma Gill

Managing Partner

“Emma Gill is quite simply the best matrimonial lawyer in the North.”

Legal 500

Meet the rest of the team

Vardags climbs ranks of UK’s biggest law firms in The Lawyer’s UK 200 The Lawyer UK 200

| WHEN YOU NEED TO WIN

Privacy & Terms

Support

Head Office

10 Old Bailey
London
EC4M 7NG

Tel: 020 7404 9390

Fax: 020 7404 8995

Vardags Limited is a limited company trading as Vardags, Company No 7199468, registered in England and Wales, having its registered office at 10 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7NG. Vardags is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number 535955). Its VAT number is 99 001 7230.

Vardags uses the term ‘Partner’ as a professional title only, to describe a Senior Solicitor, Employee or Consultant with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications (whether legally qualified or otherwise) to merit the title. Our Partners are not partners in the legal sense. They are not liable for the debts, liabilities or obligations of Vardags Limited. Similarly, the term ’Director’ is a professional title only, to describe an employee or consultant of Vardags with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications to merit the title. It does not necessarily imply that the relevant individual is a director of Vardags Limited.

A list of the directors of Vardags Limited and a list of the names of those using the title of ’Director’ and ’Partner’ together with their official status is available for inspection at Vardags’ registered office.

High profile & important cases

Radmacher v Granatino: Making Prenups Enforceable

Chai v Peng

Standish v Standish: Sharing Assets

Young v Young

Quan v Bray

White v White

AM v SS

Williams v Williams

Charman v Charman

Gohil v Gohil & Sharland v Sharland

Barder v Barder

Myerson

Xydhias v Xydhias: What is a Xydhias Agreement?

Jones v Jones

SS v NS

JL v SL

UL v BK

Y v Z: Non-Disclosure

Thomas v Thomas

Miller v Miller; MacFarlane v MacFarlane

Waggott v Waggott

Daga v Bangur

Reviews

OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM

Ayesha Vardag

Stephen Bence

Emma Gill

Ayesha Vardag

Stephen Bence

Emma Gill

YOU CAN ALWAYS CONTACT US BY