CC v LC
[2023] EWFC 52 (B)
VS v OP (Litigation misconduct, quasi-inquisitorial approach and inferences)
18 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 190 (B)
Family Court
A husband and wife went to court to divide their assets after a divorce. The wife didn't cooperate, hiding money and not showing up to hearings. The judge, despite this, tried to be fair. The husband got to keep his house because he bought it before the marriage. The wife got the other house, but she has to pay the mortgage. The husband also has to pay the wife some money each month for a few years to help her out. The judge punished the wife by not dividing the assets equally because she was so difficult.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between a husband (applicant) and wife (respondent).
- •Wife engaged in serious litigation misconduct, including repeated non-disclosure and non-attendance.
- •Husband is a litigant in person.
- •No proper court bundle was prepared for the final hearing.
- •Low-asset case with significant procedural history (six prior hearings, three ineffective FDR appointments).
- •Wife failed to provide crucial information regarding assets in Germany and current income.
- •Husband's sister was joined as an intervenor but failed to attend the hearing.
- •Three children of the marriage, aged 7, 6, and 2.
Legal Principles
In financial remedy proceedings, the court takes a quasi-inquisitorial role, investigating relevant issues even if not raised by parties.
Re HW [2023] EWCA Civ 149 at [37]; Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886 at [22]
Where there is non-disclosure, inferences may be drawn, but they must be reasonable and properly drawn; speculation and reverse-engineering are not permitted.
Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482; NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam)
Failure to comply with court orders is not excused by being a litigant in person.
R (Hysal) v SS for Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633 at [44]; Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 at [18]
In financial remedy cases, the court's first consideration is the welfare of any minor children.
M v B (Ancillary Proceedings: Lump Sum) [1998] 1 FLR 53
The court considers s.25 factors when determining financial remedies.
s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (implicitly referenced)
Outcomes
Husband retains Property B.
Acquired before marriage, without marital funds. Sister's claim for beneficial interest dismissed due to non-attendance and lack of evidence.
Property A transferred to Wife.
To provide stability for children; Wife to be solely responsible for mortgage, indemnifying Husband against loss.
Assets divided unequally in favour of Husband.
Husband's property acquired pre-marriage; Wife's litigation misconduct significantly increased costs and duration of proceedings.
Husband to pay spousal maintenance to Wife at £1200 per month for four years (extendable).
Affordable for Husband; bridges gap between inferred Wife's income and assessed outgoings; Wife expected to increase income over time.
No order as to costs.
Wife's litigation misconduct taken into account in asset distribution.