Case Review: Non-Compliance in Financial Remedy Proceedings
A recent case in the Central Family Court involving an international football player and his former TV presenter wife, reiterated the court’s willingness to take firm action against any party who fails to disclose relevant financial information and who deliberately avoids complying with court orders.
The Relationship
By way of background, the husband had a successful sporting career and moved between a variety of well-known football clubs. The parties married soon after they met and had a child, but barely lived together as the husband needed to relocate regularly to play for different teams.
The wife issued divorce proceedings after just over three years of marriage. Whilst in the early stages of the marriage the husband had been financially generous to the wife, but he withdrew financial support when they decided to end the relationship. The wife was not working at the time of the split due to caring for their young child. In contrast, it was anticipated that the husband would earn around £891,600 (gross) in the current football season.
The Proceedings
After financial remedy proceedings commenced, the husband initially attempted to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court and then entirely disengaged from the proceedings. By way of summary:
- October 2023: the court ordered Maintenance Pending Suit (‘MPS’), which is financial support paid by one spouse to the other whilst divorce proceedings are ongoing, as well as a Legal Services Payment Order (‘LSPO’), an order requiring one spouse to pay the other for the purposes of obtaining legal services. The husband did not comply with the orders.
- January 2024: the court ordered that that the husband supply a Form E, which is a document used to provide information about financial status, and in an attempt to ensure compliance, made an Attachment of Earnings Order to enforce maintenance obligations. Note, the wife had filed her Form E some five months previously.
- March 2024: the husband failed to attend a subsequent court hearing and again did not comply with the MPS and LSPO orders. Because the husband failed to provide information from particular bank accounts, the court then ordered a Third Party Disclosure Order against various banks, which is an order for someone who is not a party to the proceedings to disclose documents.
The court was concerned that the husband would leave the jurisdiction and so expedited the Final Hearing to take place in April 2024. The husband provided a Form E1 (a short form financial statement intended for more straightforward proceedings) as opposed to a completed Form E (as was ordered in January 2024) and filed an unsatisfactorily short Section 25 statement. The court deemed that this fell well short of the level required for full and honest disclosure.
Generally speaking, the husband was evasive throughout the proceedings. He denied speaking French, for example, even though it was clear from the inter-partes correspondence disclosed, as well as evidence provided by the wife, that he could. He also tried to submit that the various properties he owned in different jurisdictions did not have addresses and argued he could not provide any information about them. This was roundly criticised by the court.
The Repercussions
It was stated that due to the husband’s conduct, the wife’s legal team had to work unusually hard to make any progress and as a result the wife had incurred some £187,153 in legal fees by the Final Hearing. The court therefore ordered that the husband should pay £50,000 to the wife toward her costs (alongside payment of two other cost orders for £15,549 and £19,228).
It is well established that a core principle of the financial remedy process is that parties have a duty to provide clear, full and honest disclosure. This case has further emphasised that the courts take a dim view of anyone who fails to meet this obligation. A fact that all divorcing couples should be aware of.
Final Thoughts
This couple could have arguably benefited from NCDR (non-court dispute resolution), such as arbitration, which could have delivered a more cost-effective binding outcome. There has also been some speculation around the identity of the couple and NCDR could have ensured they maintained a greater degree of privacy throughout this process. However, NCDR would have required the husband to be significantly more forthcoming with engaging in the legal process for it to be successful.
Recent changes to the Family Procedure Rules, introduced from April 2024, are geared towards actively encouraging parties to consider alternative methods of resolving disputes outside of traditional court proceedings, otherwise they may face cost consequences. These new rules are aimed at encouraging participation in the likes of arbitration, mediation and collaborative law, and were introduced to discourage unjustified resistance by difficult and disruptive parties, such as the husband in this case.
If this case had taken place after the new rules had been introduced, and the husband continued his pattern of non-engagement and decided to actively not consider NCDR, then he may well have been on the hook for further cost sanctions.
Rory Collett is a Solicitor at Family Law in Partnership. Rory advises on all aspects of private family law, including financial and children matters as well as pre and post nuptial agreements. Having qualified at a city law firm as a commercial litigator, Rory has invaluable experience of corporate structures and business arrangements, which enables him to provide a breadth of experience to his family law clients.