Key Facts
- •Divorce proceedings with a history of domestic abuse.
- •Husband's repeated non-compliance with court orders and adjournment requests.
- •Husband's abusive and controlling communication with wife's legal team.
- •Wife's high earning capacity and sole care of two children.
- •Husband's return to teaching and resulting income.
- •Dispute over the division of assets, primarily the family home.
Legal Principles
Court's power to manage hearings and proceed in a party's absence.
Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) rules 4.1(3)(c) and 27.4(2) and (3)
Considerations for adjourning hearings on medical grounds.
Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63; Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 (QB)
Standard of fairness in financial orders on divorce.
White v White [2001] 1 AC 596
Factors to consider when determining financial orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA).
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA)
Principles of needs, sharing, and compensation in financial remedy cases.
Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503
Treatment of debts arising from legal fees.
WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40
Consideration of conduct in financial remedy cases.
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52
Treatment of earning capacity as an asset.
Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727
Considerations for housing needs in ancillary relief cases.
Cordle v Cordle [2001] EWCA Civ 1791
Costs orders in financial remedy proceedings.
None explicitly cited, but principles discussed throughout sections 99-115.
Outcomes
Hearing proceeded despite husband's absence due to his history of abusive behaviour and non-compliance.
Husband's application for adjournment lacked sufficient medical evidence and demonstrated a pattern of abusive behaviour.
Wife to receive 75% of equity in the family home.
Wife's greater needs due to childcare responsibilities, but her high income and borrowing capacity negated the need for an uneven split based solely on needs.
Husband to pay 25% of wife's legal fees (£10,000).
Husband's repeated non-compliance with court orders, abusive and controlling communications, and overall unreasonable approach to settlement justified a costs order.