WX v HX
[2023] EWFC 279 (B)
Varsha Gohil v Bhadresh Babulal Gohil & Ors
27 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1567 (Fam)
High Court
A couple's divorce case dragged on for 21 years due to the husband's criminal activities. The judge noticed different courts have different rules about sharing secret draft judgments before they are officially released, leading to confusion about whether someone could be in trouble for sharing them. The judge wants all the courts to agree on one set of rules.
Key Facts
- •The wife's application for financial remedies was made 21 years ago and was complicated by the husband's non-disclosure and subsequent conviction for money laundering.
- •The husband was convicted of money laundering and served a 10-year prison sentence.
- •Confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) against the husband are still ongoing.
- •Draft judgments from the King's Bench Division (KBD), Family Division, and Crown Court showed inconsistencies in their handling of embargoed judgments.
- •The KBD has clear rules on embargoed judgments, treating disclosure as contempt of court. The Family Division has less clear rules, and the Crown Court has no explicit rules.
Legal Principles
Disclosure of information from a draft judgment under embargo is a serious contempt of court.
R (on the application of the Counsel General for Wales) v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 18
Confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA).
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Rules concerning embargoed draft judgments in the KBD are outlined in CPR PD 40E.
CPR PD 40E
Webber v Webber [2007] 1 WLR 1052 provides guidance on handling financial remedy claims in the context of confiscation proceedings.
Webber v Webber [2007] 1 WLR 1052
Outcomes
The judge directs that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Family Procedure Rule Committee, and the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to harmonize the rules on embargoed draft judgments.
The current inconsistencies in handling embargoed judgments across different courts are unacceptable and lead to arbitrariness.
The wife's claim will be determined after the confiscation orders are made, likely following the approach in Webber v Webber.
To avoid conflict with the ongoing confiscation proceedings.