DH v RH
[2023] EWFC 111
Abigail Laura Williams v Andrew John Williams
13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3098 (Fam)
High Court
A husband refused to cooperate in divorce proceedings and hide his money. The judge made him pay his wife's legal bills, which were very high because of his actions, to help her find and recover his hidden money.
Key Facts
- •Hadkinson application to prevent respondent's participation in financial remedy proceedings was dismissed.
- •Respondent (Mr. Williams) showed blatant non-compliance with court orders, including failure to disclose financial information despite being potentially a billionaire.
- •Applicant (Mrs. Williams) lacked assets and had exhausted legal services funding, except for £204,000 from Schneiders.
- •Applicant sought legal services funding order (LSPO) to cover past and future costs, including overseas enforcement.
- •Evidence suggested respondent held significant assets in UK bank accounts, Monaco (UBS), and ABB accounts.
- •Court considered costs for ongoing litigation, overseas litigation (Monaco and ABB, but not Switzerland), and expert reports.
Legal Principles
Hadkinson applications generally have no place in financial remedy proceedings before a final order.
Young v Young [2013] EWHC 3637
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 applies to financial remedy proceedings, requiring investigation of financial circumstances.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Applicant for LSPO must show evidence of two refusals of funding.
Outcomes
Hadkinson application dismissed.
Preventing respondent's participation would hinder the court's ability to investigate his financial circumstances.
LSPO granted for £190,420 (outstanding fees), £185,423 (ongoing litigation), and £175,000 (overseas litigation).
Respondent's non-compliance caused increased costs; he possesses the means to pay; and payment by installments is impractical given his non-cooperation. Overseas litigation is justified given the potential for significant assets in Monaco and ABB.
Expert reports (valuation of commercial property and business valuation) approved at £102,900.
Respondent's non-cooperation necessitates these reports.