Sofia Bogolyubova v Gennadiy Bogolyubov & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 547
NA v LA
24 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 113
Family Court
A wealthy couple's divorce case was paused so they could try to settle things outside of court first. The judge said this was better for them and their kids, and cheaper than a long court battle. They have to tell the judge in a few weeks what progress they've made.
Key Facts
- •High-value financial remedy case involving a wife ('W') and husband ('H').
- •W obtained ex parte non-molestation and occupation orders, and a preservation order over two London properties.
- •W subsequently filed for divorce and made applications for spousal maintenance/periodic payments and a lump sum order.
- •H was unaware of W's actions and was described as 'blindsided'.
- •The case involved significant assets, including an £8m family home, a £6.5m property under renovation, other properties, and international business interests.
- •The court considered the appropriateness of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) at various stages.
- •Significant legal costs were already incurred (£125,000 to date for W, plus estimated additional costs).
Legal Principles
The court must actively manage cases and encourage the use of non-court dispute resolution procedures.
FPR 2010, Part 3, r1.4(1) and (2)(f)
The court can encourage parties to undertake NCDR even without their agreement, provided time allows.
FPR 2010, Part 3, r3.4(1A)(b)
Failure to attend NCDR without good reason can be a factor in costs decisions.
FPR 2010, r28.3(7)(aa)(ii)
The court can order parties to attempt NCDR before judicial determination, but it must be proportionate and respect Article 6 rights.
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
Courts expect serious attempts at resolution before issuing proceedings and actively consider NCDR suitability at all stages.
X v Y (Financial Remedy: Non-Court Dispute Resolution) [2024] EWHC 538
The court must consider whether NCDR is appropriate at every stage, taking into account MIAMs and previous attempts at NCDR.
FPR 2010, r3.3(1) and (2)
MIAM exemption is not automatically valid and courts will inquire into its continued applicability.
FPR 2010, r3.10(1)
Outcomes
Financial proceedings stayed to encourage NCDR.
The case was deemed suitable for NCDR, and it would benefit the parties emotionally and financially.
Directions issued requiring parties to report on NCDR engagement and propose a way forward.
To facilitate a structured approach to NCDR and subsequent court decision making.
Orders made concerning non-molestation, occupation and financial provisions.
Compromise reached between the parties during the hearing