HO v TL (Costs)
[2023] EWFC 216
J v H
9 November 2022
[2022] EWFC 133
Family Court
A husband tried to freeze his wealthy wife's assets, claiming she was hiding money. The judge didn't believe him because the amounts were small and she explained them. The husband has to pay the wife's legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Husband (H) applied for a freezing injunction against Wife (W) concerning her assets in the UK and overseas.
- •W is from a wealthy family and H estimated her wealth at $15m, while W claimed approximately £5m.
- •H alleged W's withdrawals of £32,000 and $18,000 from joint accounts were suspicious.
- •W argued the withdrawals were for family expenses and the $18,000 belonged to her father.
- •H also raised concerns about a property transfer from W's mother to W.
- •The application was initially made with only one hour's notice.
Legal Principles
Principles and safeguards for freezing orders
UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples) [2013] EWHC 1735
Outcomes
The application for a freezing injunction was dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence of a solid risk of asset dissipation or intention to defeat H's claims. The withdrawals were deemed trifling in relation to W's overall wealth and were either explained or rectified.
H was ordered to pay W's costs on the standard basis, approximately £27,318, payable after the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings.
The application was deemed unsuccessful and lacked sufficient justification. However, an indemnity costs order was not deemed appropriate.