DH v RH (No 2): Variation of Interim Orders in Financial Remedy Proceedings Explored in UK Family Law Case

Introduction

The case of DH v RH (No 2) (Variation of Interim Arrangements): EWFC 2023 210 [2023] EWFC 210 is a significant family law case that addresses the complexities of financial remedy proceedings. This case is particularly instructive for practitioners in the UK as it touches upon crucial interim arrangements such as Legal Service Payment Orders (LSPO), Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) orders, the use of freezing injunctions to protect assets, and the approach the court takes when considering variation of interim orders in the absence of complete evidence.

Key Facts

The court was presented with multiple interim applications ahead of a financial remedy final hearing. DH (the wife), represented by Jonathan Southgate KC, and RH (the husband), represented by Alexis Campbell KC, are entangled in prolonged financial litigation with interim issues consuming their resources. The husband sought to discharge multiple current arrangements, including a freezing order on his life insurance policy, the MPS order, and an LSPO, proposing the division of funds from a life insurance policy borrowing and equal access to US property rental income. Conversely, the wife applied for the adjournment of the freezing order return date and enforcement of unpaid MPS and LSPO funds.

Legal Principles

The legal principles applied in this case focus on the variation of interim orders such as LSPO and MPS when there is an alleged material change of circumstances since the orders were made, as stipulated in Section 22ZA(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611 (Fam)). The court must consider these matters deeply, as indicated under s. 22ZB(1) of the same act.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Garner v Garner [1992] 1 FLR 573 is reflected in the judgment, which addresses variations of periodical payment orders and suggests that unless there is a material change of circumstance, applications to vary will, in effect, constitute an appeal.

The judgment also elucidates on the principles governing freezing injunctions, referring to the case of Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Yu [2022] 4 WLR 1, where a real risk of unjustified dissipation that threatens justice warrants the imposition of a freezing injunction.

Moreover, Morris v Morris [2017] 1 WLR 554 informs the judgment by outlining the need for the court to conduct an exercise proportionate to the requirements of the case when considering an application to vary.

Outcomes

The court ruled that the freezing order concerning the husband’s life insurance policy should be discharged, allowing him to borrow against it. The court varied the MPS order to cease the £7,000 monthly rental provision, leaving the wife with a reduced MPS. The husband’s proposals for other interim financial arrangement variations were refused. The judge emphasized the need for parties to focus on fulfilling case management directions to prepare for the final hearing.

Conclusion

The case demonstrates the court’s careful consideration of interim financial orders within the context of impending final hearings. The principles guiding such decisions reflect both statutory requirements and case law that prioritize ensuring the parties’ financial security and legal representation in the lead-up to the final determination of their dispute. The judgment is a reminder of the judiciary’s capacity to adapt and vary interim orders in light of proven material changes in circumstances, whilst cautioning litigants against utilizing interim applications as quasi-appeals or as a means to delay proceedings.

The outcome, while addressing specific immediate financial requirements, seeks to enforce existing orders and drive the proceedings to a conclusion. Legal professionals must be mindful of these factors when advising clients on interim financial remedies and should emphasize the importance of adhering to directions to avoid unnecessary additional litigation and associated costs.