Report comment

I seem to remember the NUM being pursued for hiding its assetts, and many many millions being paid to top accountants to trace the funds - all charged to the NUM. In this case it was wholly clear that the husband was going to lie, lie, and lie again to hide his assets. First, the wife had no option but to go the route she did, or the husband would have walked with everything and she would have received neither what the law entitled her to nor justice. Second, when it became clear that the husband would not comply why should the system not have been able immediately to freeze all his known assets, order all people within the jurisdiction to give full disclosure, automatically deducted all tracing costs from his assets on a full indemnity basis and imprisoned him for contempt until he did give full disclosure? The wife did nothing but seek her entitlements. Why should she be criticised?