If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
64 Victoria Street Blackburn |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ON |
||
- v - |
||
ON |
____________________
Ludgate House, 107-111 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AB
Tel: 0330 100 5223 | Email: uk.transcripts@escribers.net | uk.escribers.net
MS BENNETT appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE BOOTH:
What is the Case About?
The issues as defined at a Directions Hearing
Representation
The Evidence
History
The Award
The Relevant Law
"… any changes in the situation of either party occurring between the filing of the original affidavits and the final disposition of the claims by the court…"
"[20] It is of course trite law that the parties to an ancillary relief application have a duty of full and frank disclosure which extends until judgment is given: Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) [1985] AC424 and Vernon v Bosley (No. 2) [1999] QB18."
"[36] Finally, I would like to endorse Ms Stones QC's concern about the potential effect of lengthy delay between the end of a hearing and the production of the judgment in these complex ancillary relief cases involving fast moving commercial enterprises, where the profile of a company can alter, sometimes in a short period. In such cases the picture is inevitably continually shifting, and this places an unfair burden, I think, on participants in such enterprises in having to discharge this continuing burden of disclosure. Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC424 contemplated, I think, a short period, i.e., not more than a matter of a few weeks, between hearing and judgment. In this case, on both occasions, there was a gap of some four months. Arguably, I think, different disclosure considerations might apply in a case involving this kind of delay, however, I am not going to go down that track today, I merely raise it as a concern which may call for consideration in a future case."
"Given that the orders determining the enforceable legal rights of the parties following divorce are made under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and not under the Arbitration Act 1996, there is no requirement for the discontented party first to make an application under section 57, section 68 or section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before asking the family court to decline to make an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 under the terms of the Arbitral Award."
"The approach to determine whether the court should decline to make an order in the terms of the Award is by reference to the appeal procedure and the approach found in the Family Procedure Rules 2010."
The nature of this hearing
What are the Wife's complaints?
My Assessment of the Parties and the Evidence
Other Changes
What should I do?
Conclusion
Lessons to be learnt
Addendum
I circulated a draft of this judgment to counsel and invited corrections and any matters of clarification. That was responded to, and I handed down what was intended to be the final version dated 22nd November2024 (distributed on the 21st). That was followed by the wife's legal team raising different points. I allowed that to happen and provided for the husband's team to be able to respond. On viewing the wife's points I realized that my treatment of the costs issues required some expansion and I have done that in what I have headed Version 2.0. The additional points made on behalf of the wife are a blatant attempt to reopen the case. It is said that I have failed to achieve a broad 50/50 division by producing a schedule of figures some of which are updated some of which are not. The husband's team have produced a counter-schedule based on more up to date figures to show that I have. The only other approach is fresh Forms E. I am satisfied with my figures. What distorts the position is the vast amount of legal costs incurred by the wife on issues she has failed to establish. I am also aware that in a very few weeks' time the 2024 figures for the husband's business will be filed at Companies House. I have no idea whether that will be good or bad news for the companies. It may very well be bad news for the parties as the only next step may be to start the financial remedy proceedings again.