EL v ML
[2023] EWFC 43 (B)
A v M (No.3)
25 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 299
Family Court
A wife's financial settlement was calculated using wrong information given by her husband. She tried to correct it later. The husband said she was too late. The judge said the husband's mistake was more important than the wife's delay, so the case will continue, and they should try mediation.
Key Facts
- •Wife (W) sought to set aside a financial remedy order made by Mostyn J due to husband's (H) misrepresentation regarding the closure date of a private equity fund.
- •Mostyn J's order calculated W's share based on an incorrect fund closure date provided by H.
- •H failed to provide further documentation as ordered, leaving W in the dark.
- •W initially pursued a construction application, which was dismissed. She then applied to set aside Mostyn J's order.
- •H applied to strike out W's set-aside application.
- •The judge considered whether W's delay in applying to set aside the order constituted an abuse of process.
Legal Principles
Finality of litigation and avoiding vexatious litigation.
Johnson v Gore, Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Abuse of process; the need for parties to put their cards on the table to allow for proper case management.
Stuart v Goldberg Linde [2008] 1 WLR 823
Exception to the Henderson principle where a judgment was obtained by fraud; diligence not required to be shown.
Park v CNH [2021] EWCA Civ 1766
Parties are expected to advance their cases at a single hearing; exceptions in special circumstances.
AD v CD [2022] EWFC 116
No blanket ban on bringing a subsequent claim to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud due to lack of diligence in a previous claim.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13
Court's power to strike out an application for no real prospect of success.
FPR 4.4
Outcomes
H's application to strike out W's set-aside application was dismissed.
While W could and should have applied to set aside the order earlier, the judge considered the prejudice caused to W by H's misleading information and subsequent lack of openness, balancing this against the prejudice to H caused by W's delay. The judge found that striking out W's application would not be just given the admitted wrong by H.
The case was adjourned for mediation.
The judge recognized the potential for mediation to resolve the dispute and facilitate a just outcome.