Kicinski v Pardi – Family Law Week case summary

15 March 2021

Appeal against decision that the Thwaite jurisdiction did not apply to the executory Rose order the parties had agreed in settlement of financial proceedings allowed and order varied.

The hearing was the latest stage in protracted financial remedies litigation between Antje Kicinski (W) and Peter Paul Pardi (H).  W appealed the decision of Recorder Allen QC (The Judge) dated 16.07.20 (G v C [2020] EWFC B35).  Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was listed for 2 days.  The matter before the court in this hearing was an application by W for permission to stay an order for transfer of certain monies prior to the appeal.  In the circumstances both parties agreed that if there was sufficient court time, the court should also deal with the appeal.  Both stay and appeal were dealt with at the hearing.

A significant part of the financial dispute related to some £7 million in cash and securities in 4 Swiss bank accounts in W's name.  The funds had been transferred to these accounts during the marriage by H's uncle and aunt (U&A) who executed notarised deeds of gift.  A few days prior to the first appointment, W was served with a notice of claim instituted by U&A in Italy for her to return these funds.  W instructed Withers in Italy in those proceedings and also instructed Withers in her divorce proceedings in this jurisdiction.

At the final financial remedies hearing in October 2019 the parties reached agreement and the court was asked to approve the heads of agreement as a Rose order.  U&A were not represented in those proceedings but their solicitor instructed in the Italian proceedings was involved in the discussions about the agreement by those acting for H.

Read the full summary on Family Law Week.