Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings with modest resources.
- •Husband, a journalist, and wife, a part-time teacher, have three children.
- •Three-bedroom former matrimonial home is the core asset.
- •Husband refused to engage in proceedings, ignoring disclosure orders and failing to attend hearings.
- •Wife seeks to retain the matrimonial home due to children's needs and husband's controlling behavior.
- •Husband's non-disclosure prevents accurate assessment of his financial resources.
Legal Principles
Welfare of children is the first consideration in financial remedy proceedings.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(1)
Court considers all circumstances of the case, including those in section 25(2), when determining financial orders.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(2)
Conduct can be considered in financial remedy cases, including add-back, litigation misconduct, and drawing inferences about undisclosed assets.
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52; NG v SG (Appeal: Non-Disclosure) [2012] 1 FLR 1211; Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482; RR v CDS [2020] EWCA Civ 1212
Court may set aside an order if the applicant acted promptly, had a good reason for non-attendance, and has a reasonable prospect of success.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 27.5
Court has the power to reduce the time for appealing a decision.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 30.4(2)(a)
Wrongful order to take out life insurance.
Milne v Milne [1981] 2 F.L.R. 286; CH v WH [2017] EWHC 2379
Outcomes
Matrimonial home transferred to the wife.
Children's welfare and wife's needs.
Husband to pay wife a lump sum of £64,500.
To meet husband's needs, considering his likely underdeclaration of assets.
Husband to continue periodical payments of £1,062 per month, indexed to RPI.
Wife's needs, children's needs, and husband's non-disclosure.
No clean break order.
Wife's limited earning capacity, children's needs, and husband's non-cooperation.
Husband to pay wife's costs (£5,500).
Husband's litigation misconduct.