MA v ROUX
[2024] EWHC 1917 (Fam)
RL v NL
9 May 2023
[2023] EWFC 75 (B)
Family Court
Someone tried to overturn a 1995 court order about a house, but their reasons were confusing and they waited too long, so the judge threw the case out.
Key Facts
- •Application to set aside a 1995 financial remedy order (ordering transfer of family home) was made in 2022.
- •Applicant (RL/H) claims the order was made due to fraud or lack of consent.
- •Respondent (NL/W) is a litigant in person and wants the order enforced.
- •Court lost evidence submitted by the respondent.
- •Significant delay (27 years) between the order and the application.
- •Applicant's statements are inconsistent and lack clarity.
- •Applicant's solicitor failed to adequately explain the case.
- •The original court file was destroyed per HMCTS policy.
Legal Principles
Family court's power to vary, suspend, rescind, or revive orders.
MFPA 1984, s 31(6)
Grounds to set aside financial remedy orders include fraud and lack of valid consent.
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60; MAP v RAP [2013] EWHC 4784
Applications to set aside orders must be made promptly.
L v L [2008] 1 FLR 26; Shaw v Shaw [2002] EWCA Civ 12; Burns v Burns [2004] EWCA Civ 1258
Court's power to strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process.
FPR 2010, r 4.4(1)
In strike-out applications, the focus is on whether the application is 'legally recognisable', not its prospects of success.
Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14; Roocroft v Ball [2017] 2 FLR 811
Outcomes
Applicant's application struck out.
The application is factually incoherent, the legal basis unclear, and there is no reasonable ground for bringing the claim.