Family Lawyers in a Stew Over Chef’s Sleuthing Challenge
Published January 2010
Battling couples could be banned from turning private eye in bitter divorce cases if a landmark ruling bans snooping through your partner’s papers.
Former Michelin-starred chef Marco Pierre White has taken his estranged wife’s lawyers to court in a case that could have a major impact on how future divorce battles are fought, according to Gurdip Kaur-Brring, a partner in the family law division of MFG Solicitors.
Mr White is claiming that his estranged wife wrongfully intercepted his personal papers and if the case is upheld, it could end the long established practice of spouses turning detective to unearth evidence helpful to them in divorce cases.
Miss Kaur-Brring said: “There is a legal duty on both parties to make full and candid disclosure of all relevant documents voluntarily and where one party suspects that the other has been less than forthcoming then the secret rummaging of papers to find evidence is condoned by Courts, provided that the spouse has not embarked on a commando-style raid and broken into the ex-spouse’s house to obtain such information.”
She cited the case of Hilderbrand v Hilderbrand which established the Hilderbrand rule which basically states that any paperwork “left lying around” can be copied and used in the proceedings. The originals must be returned to the rightful owner forthwith. It is not right to take and keep an original document especially which involves concealing the document from the intended recipient.
Central to Marco Pierre White’s argument is his claim that documents his wife had intercepted included a contract from P&O and a personal letter from his daughter by a previous marriage which he had never seen until the originals were produced by his wife’s lawyers.
Gurdip Kaur-Brring said: “All too often the relationship of trust between divorcing couples is no longer there and spouses result to DIY or self help methods to obtain information which they believe the other party may withhold, remove or destroy and which could potentially prejudice that spouses claim for financial relief.
“In a recent matter involving the removal by the wife of the husband’s computer hard drive the Judge commented that even if the wife had accessed the computer hard disk without the husband‘s consent he did not think that a Judge in the family division could exclude it.
“The Judge did not say that evidence obtained from a self help measure could never be justified nor that evidence obtained from a self help measure would automatically be excluded but rather that the Court is the appropriate body to deal with such behaviour rather than the parties taking it upon themselves.
“Marco Pierre White made a claim for damages against his wife’s solicitors arguing that on the advice of her lawyers she intercepted his mail and documents and withheld the same, which included a letter from his daughter from his first marriage. A letter that was described by the Judge as a ‘touching almost heart breaking letter to her father’.
In a landmark ruling the judge decided that there was a case to answer and that the lawyers should be held to account.
“It is professional impropriety to advise a client to behave improperly and if Marco Pierre White should succeed in his claim against the wife’s solicitors then this could mark the end of the self help measures where spouses have turned detective to unearth evidence,” said Gurdip Kaur-Brring.
She added that family lawyers would be looking for clear guidance from the outcome of this case so that they could advise clients on precisely what they could and could not do in the future.
