Domestic Abuse and Financial Remedies: Insights from KA v LE [2023] EWFC 266 (B)

Citation: [2023] EWFC 266 (B)
Judgment on

Introduction

The judgment in the case of KA v LE [2023] EWFC 266 (B) provides an insightful examination of financial remedy proceedings following a divorce. This article analyses the key topics discussed, legal principles applied, and the outcomes of this Family Court case. Legal professionals practicing in the UK will find particular interest in the court’s application of legal standards in adjudicating the financial disputes following a case of domestic abuse.

Key Facts

In case number [2023] EWFC 266 (B), presided by Deputy District Judge Mark Harrop at the Family Court sitting in Luton, the court was tasked with determining a financial order upon divorce. The parties, referred to as “the wife” and “the husband,” have a history of domestic abuse, substantiated in a previous fact-finding hearing wherein the husband was found to have bullied and controlled the wife throughout their marriage, contributing to the decision to limit his contact with their children.

The couple has two children, and since their separation, the wife has been their primary carer. The financial disputes involved the division of assets, including the family home and both parties’ pensions, assessment of earning capacities, and outstanding liabilities, primarily legal fees incurred during the dispute.

Several legal principles were applied to the adjudication of this case:

  1. Adjournment: The legal framework involved considering past behavior, including the repeated failure of the husband to comply with court orders and his last-minute application to adjourn the final hearing on medical grounds. The principles set out in cases of Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] and Decker v Hopcraft [2015] were considered, particularly the need for detailed medical evidence when seeking an adjournment and the court’s discretion in such decisions.

  2. Financial Remedy on Divorce: The applicable legal standard from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 guided the decision. The principles of needs, sharing, and compensation, as well as the statutory criteria found in section 25 of the MCA were integral to the judgment. Further, case law such as White v White [2001], Charman v Charman [2007], and Waggott v Waggott [2018] informed the court’s understanding of the concept of needs, contribution and non-financial misconduct as they pertain to the division of assets.

  3. Conduct in Proceedings: Misconduct in litigation can impact the court’s decision on costs. The husband’s litigation conduct was reviewed following principles elucidated in cases like Forresters Ketley v Brent [2012] and P v Q [2022], focusing on behavior during litigation, reasonable settlement offers, compliance with court orders, and communication.

  4. Costs in Family Proceedings: The court considered whether to diverge from the general rule that each side bears their own costs and, if so, how much should be awarded. The misconduct of parties in relation to the proceedings, particularly relevant to this case, was a significant factor in deciding upon costs following the precedent set in OG v AG [2020].

Outcomes

  1. Adjournment Refused: The husband’s request to adjourn was refused based on insufficient medical evidence and past conduct in litigation, signaling that his health concerns were foreseeable and could have been addressed sooner.

  2. Financial Order: Balancing the principles of needs and fairness, the court decided that an outright transfer of the husband’s interest in the family home to the wife was appropriate, with the husband’s share being £140,000, adjustable by the cost order made against him.

  3. Costs Order: The husband was ordered to pay £10,000 towards the wife’s legal fees, which reflects 25% of her costs, taking into account his unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to reasonably engage in settlement discussions.

Conclusion

The judgment of KA v LE [2023] EWFC 266 (B) delineates a comprehensive approach to the resolution of financial disputes in the context of divorce and serves as a precedent for similar cases moving forward. It underlines the court’s dedication to ensuring fair outcomes amidst complex financial situations while also providing an important commentary on litigation conduct. This case reiterates the significance of full and frank disclosure, the principles of fairness dictated by needs, and the potential for costs orders against parties who unreasonably conduct litigation, especially where domestic abuse is part of the relationship history.