3rd August 2010

The Court of Appeal in London has handed down its ruling on the Imerman case which questioned the validity of Hildebrand rules for the procurement of evidence in a divorce financial settlement.

The appeal court ruled that the original decision of Justice Eady should be upheld and that Mr Imerman should have unlawfully-obtained information about his finances returned to him and any further use of it restrained.

The former major stake holder in Del Monte shared business ties and Mayfair office premises with his ex-wife's brothers, and, when Lisa Tchenguiz filed a divorce petition against Mr Imerman in December 2008, he was evicted from the offices within a few weeks.

However, during that time, Ms Tchenguiz's brothers took a large amount of data and documents from Mr Imerman's password-protected computer system (estimated at between 250,000 and 2.5 million pages of emails and attachments).

In the ruling Master of the Rolls Lord Neuburger clarified that "nothing in the so-called Hildebrand rules can be relied upon in justification of, or as providing a defence to, conduct which would otherwise be criminal or actionable (whether as a tort or in equity) nor as providing any reason why the relief (whether at law or in equity) which would otherwise be available should not be granted."

Further clarification of the application of Hildebrand rules in the gathering of evidence for a divorce financial settlement claim came when Lord Neuburger added that neither the wives who unlawfully avail themselves of documents nor the family law practitioners or professional associates who receive them (or copies of them) can plead the aforementioned rules as a claim for relief.