Family Law Hub

Enforcement

Latest updates

  • A hearing at which Cobb J considered the appropriate sanction for breaches of a freezing injunction. The parties had never married, but lived together for about 20 years and had five children. The female partner had asserted that there had been 562 withdrawals from the account, and the vast majority had been proven. Cobb J took into account that it was not the female partner's wish to see the male partner imprisoned, and that the breaches had been deliberate, repeated, and over an extended period of time, leaving the account materially depleted, and that the male partner had at no time admitted his wrongdoing or accepted responsibilty for the breach. A six-month sentence of imprisonment would be the appropriate sanction, suspended for twelve months, to ensure his compliance with the extant final orders. Judgment, 18/11/2020, free
  • In the course of consolidated Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 enforcement proceedings and Children Act 1989 section 8 proceedings, the father appealed against an order for financial disclosure with a penal notice, and a costs allowance order in favour of the mother. He also sought to put in evidence of the mother's alleged non-disclosure and drug use. Williams J refused the father's applications to admit fresh evidence, to amend the grounds of appeal, and for disclosure of the means by which the mother's lawyers were funded through the Children Act proceedings. He had not demonstrated a realistic prospect of success in relation to any of them, nor was there any other compelling reason to grant permission to appeal. The mother sought an order for the father to pay her costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the associated applications. Williams J was satisfied that this was an appropriate case in which to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2020, free
  • The parties had been married and had a ten-year-old daughter. The proceedings had been protracted and involved substantial costs. The judge had made an income clean break order. The husband had applied to enforce the outstanding payment of the lump sum. The wife now applied to set the order aside, make a new order or vary its terms insofar as it dismissed income claims and required payment of a lump sum. She argued that where there was an executory order which had not been fully implemented, and the current circumstances were inequitable, the original order should be set aside and everything opened up again. She placed specific reliance on Thwaite [1981] 2 All ER 789. DDJ David Hodson dismissed her application, apart from as to the date of payment. He was satisfied that the appropriate test was either "significant change of circumstances or quasi-Barder" and in his view none of the reasons given in this case came remotely close. Judgment, 21/08/2020, free
  • An application by the wife to vary and extend the freezing orders granted against the first respondent in 2016, to cover all of his assets. They had been granted because of a real risk that the judgment – that the husband should pay the wife £453,576,152 by way of financial remedy consequent upon the breakdown of their marriage – would otherwise have gone unsatisfied. Knowles J had no hesitation in concluding that there was a real risk that the judgments and orders in the wife's favour would go unsatisfied if the relief were not granted. The husband's complex web of illicit transactions had expanded beyond the perceived scope of the original freezing orders, with the result that he and third parties had felt able to ignore the court's orders with impunity. Judgment, 21/08/2020, free
  • The couple had been separated since 2012 and divorced since 2014. They had two children, aged 13 and 15. The husband was in very substantial breach of his financial obligations under a previous order, to the extent of £2.6m. The husband claimed that he was insolvent and could be made bankrupt by any one of his many creditors. In HHJ Hess's view, the husband was asking her to re-open the overall quantum of a lump sum by instalments which had been part of a consent order which had been intended to be a final package. Since he was a substantial cause of his own problems, she could not regard those problems as rendering it unjust to hold him to the original order. Despite his current difficulties, the order would not be discharged by bankruptcy proceedings or by time limitation, so the former wife might one day be able to enforce it. The capital order was varied to adopt a new, agreed figure, and the child periodical payments order was varied in accordance with an agreement reached between the parties. Judgment, 08/08/2020, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Tim Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row tries to make sense of what might happen to international family cases after 29th March next year and reviews a few recent key international finance cases. Recorded September 2018. Webcast, 07/10/2018, members only
  • Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
  • Webinar broadcast on 21 January 2014 presented by Amber Sheridan and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row Webcast, 21/01/2014, registration required
  • Get up to date with all the latest changes to the family justice and procedure presented by David Salter of Mills & Reeve. Webcast, 01/06/2012, registration required

Latest sources

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item