L v O
[2024] EWFC 6
WJB v HJM
15 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 116 (B)
Family Court
A husband repeatedly ignored court orders to pay his ex-wife. The judge stopped him from challenging the order until he pays what he owes, plus legal costs. The judge said the husband's actions made it impossible for the court to work fairly.
Key Facts
- •Applicant (W) sought enforcement of a financial remedy order against Respondent (H), who was in arrears.
- •H had a history of non-compliance with court orders and non-attendance.
- •W applied for a Hadkinson order to prevent H from pursuing a variation application until arrears were paid.
- •H resides in the USA and failed to attend hearings, despite being ordered to do so in person.
- •H's application to vary the order was not based on inability to pay, but on W's alleged income and cohabitation.
- •H claimed a bankruptcy petition had been issued, but no evidence was provided.
Legal Principles
A Hadkinson order is a draconian measure, a case management order of last resort used when a litigant is in wilful contempt and there's no other effective remedy.
de Gafforj v de Gafforj [2018] EWCA Civ 2070; Assoun v Assoun [2017] EWCA Civ 21
To grant a Hadkinson order, the respondent must be in deliberate and continuing contempt, impeding the course of justice, with no other effective remedy; the order must be proportionate.
de Gafforj v de Gafforj [2018] EWCA Civ 2070
Non-payment in breach of a maintenance order is contempt of court, regardless of ability to pay. Ability to pay is relevant when deciding how to act on the contempt.
Mubarak v Mubarik [2006] EWHC 1260 (Fam)
Impeding the course of justice includes making it difficult for the court to ascertain the truth or enforce orders.
Laing v Laing [2005] EWHC (Fam)
Applications to vary orders do not prevent enforcement.
Tattersall v Tattersall [2018] EWCA Civ 1978
In cost orders, the starting point for financial remedy applications is no order, but this does not apply to D50K applications. CPR 44.2 applies, considering conduct of the parties.
CPR 44.2; Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No.2) [1991] 2 FLR
Outcomes
Hadkinson order granted, preventing H from pursuing his variation application until arrears of £61,901.62 and costs of £21,189.40 are paid.
H's deliberate and continuing contempt, impeding the course of justice due to non-payment and non-attendance; no other effective remedy available.
Costs order against H for £10,932.60, added to the amount due under the Hadkinson order.
H's conduct in breaching orders and failing to engage with the court process.