Manage your profile
Let 38,000 visitors find you. With 172,000 page views, Citywealth enables UHNW clients and charities to review your services quickly.
Partner, Head of Family
Specialism: Lawyers Family and Matrimonial
Company: Mishcon de Reya
Location: London, England
Sandra Davis currently has no profile.
To add a profile please upgrade now
2018 Powerwomen Awards
Champion of the Year - Mentoring/Sponsoring Programme | Gold Winner
2019 Powerwomen Awards
Champion of the Year - Mentoring/Sponsoring Programmes | BRONZE
Sandra Davis currently has no Citywealth award
Average client size: Over £25 million
Fixed fee offering: No
Number of offices globally: 1-5
Sandra Davis currently has no contact details
Sandra Davis currently has no reviews
Saudi businessman's ex-wife awarded £56m, plus assets worth £20m
Sandra acted for the prominent Saudi businessman whose wife issued an application under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act for a financial remedy in the British Courts, following an overseas divorce. At the final hearing in June 2016, the wife's claim was limited to needs and she was awarded £56 million, plus assets in her own name worth £20 million. The high profile case attracted significant media coverage.
Africa's "youngest billionaire" ordered to pay ex-wife after trying to hide money offshore
Sandra is acting on a widely-reported case Thakkar v Thakkar for the wife of Africa's so-called youngest billionaire and the founder of a group of companies with a turnover reported to be in excess of $1billion.
Yet, in the divorce, the husband disclosed assets worth only £450k, and claimed that the group was legally and beneficially owned by the key members of his family. Sandra joined the husband's key members of the family to the proceedings, and obtained disclosure orders against the husband, his family, the trust in the BVI and other third parties, with a view to establishing who beneficially owned the group.
Following a five day preliminary issue hearing, the judge found that the key members of the husband's family were holding legal ownership of the group as the husband's nominees, with the husband being the sole beneficial owner of the group. The husband was refused permission to appeal and will have to pay the wife's costs on the indemnity basis.