DH v RH
[2023] EWFC 111
DH v RH (No 2) (Variation of Interim Arrangements)
28 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 210
Family Court
A husband and wife are fighting over money in court. The judge let the husband borrow against his life insurance to pay legal fees and support, but didn't fully redistribute assets yet because there's still a lot of evidence to look at before a final decision. The judge wants the case finished quickly because they've already spent tons of money on lawyers.
Key Facts
- •Long-running financial remedy proceedings between DH (wife) and RH (husband).
- •Numerous interim applications, including discharge of freezing order on husband's life insurance policy, borrowing against the policy, release from undertakings on bank accounts, wife vacating Wyoming property, discharge of MPS and LSPO orders, adjournment of return date for freezing order, and enforcement of unpaid MPS and LSPO.
- •Wife moved into Wyoming property instead of London rental as previously stated to the court.
- •Wife engaged in litigation against a US bank and husband in Wyoming.
- •Husband claims insufficient liquid assets to meet obligations under LSPO and MPS orders.
- •Husband proposes borrowing against the policy and equal division of funds, and equal access to rental income from US properties.
- •Wife alleges husband has undisclosed assets and income.
Legal Principles
Variation of LSPO: Court may vary an LSPO if there has been a material change of circumstances. Court must consider matters under s. 22 ZB(1)(a) to (h) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 22 ZA(5), s. 22 ZB(1), Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611 (Fam)
Variation of MPS: Court considers whether there has been a change of circumstances and applies principles of reasonableness to the changed circumstances.
None explicitly cited, but derived from general principles of MPS orders.
Applications to vary: Court considers all relevant circumstances afresh, paying appropriate regard to the original order. The exercise must be proportionate.
Garner v Garner [1992] 1 FLR 573, Morris v Morris [2017] 1 WLR 554
Freezing injunction: Evidence must demonstrate objectively a real risk of unjustified dissipation sufficient to render it just and convenient to grant.
Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Yu [2022] 4 WLR 1
Interim applications: Contrasting presentations on value, income, and need are common; resolving these at an interim hearing is neither possible nor appropriate.
Implicit in the judge's reasoning throughout the judgment.
Outcomes
Freezing order discharged; husband permitted to borrow against policy.
Insufficient liquid assets to meet obligations; criteria for freezing order not met; wife's allegations of undisclosed assets require further investigation at final hearing.
MPS order varied; rental component removed.
Wife's occupation of Wyoming property negates the need for rental provision in MPS; £7,000 monthly for child visitation expenses deemed unreasonable.
Husband's applications to release from undertakings on bank accounts, wife vacating Wyoming property, equal division of rental income, and discharge of MPS and LSPO orders refused.
Incomplete evidence; detailed investigation requires final hearing; court only making orders strictly necessary for interim period.
LSPO and MPS orders remain in place (subject to MPS variation).
No material change of circumstances justifying discharge; wife still requires legal representation; wife's need for maintenance pending suit continues.