[2010]JRC075A
royal court
(Samedi Division)
20th April 2010
Before : |
V. J. Obbard, Registrar, sitting alone. |
Between |
A |
Petitioner |
And |
B |
Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF P
Case summary and reasons for referral to Inferior Number
The Petitioner appeared in person.
Mr LI on behalf of the Respondent.
judgment
the Registrar:
1. What follows is a timeline of events in this case:-
(i) 20th March, 2008; The wife's divorce petition, on the grounds of the parties' separation for 2 years was filed by Backhurst Dorey and Crane. The date of the parties' separation was given as "on or about the end of 1995". The Form 5 attached to the petition disclosed that Child 1 and Child 2 are privately educated. Child 1 was already by then at a private school (fees £9,000 per term) and Child 2 expected to join Child 1 in September 2008. Both children lived with their mother.
(ii) 16th April, 2008; Directions made for substituted service of the petition by post to the respondent in England.
(iii) 14th July, 2008; Form 4 acknowledgement of service filed by husband.
(iv) 30th July, 2008; Decree Nisi was pronounced.
(v) 9th September, 2008; The wife (now represented by Advocate Whittaker) filed Form 16 and applied for maintenance, secured provision, lump sum and variation of settlement.
(vi) 10th September, 2008; The husband filed form 2 on and applied for contact. Also filed form 16 and applied for ancillary relief, including transfer or settlement of property in relation to the wife's two properties, one in Jersey and one in England.
(vii) 16th September, 2008; Preliminary hearing re filing affidavits, questionnaires, valuations etc. Directions also made re filing welfare report and psychological report.
(viii) 30th September, 2008; Psychological report (Dr Bryn Williams) filed.
(ix) 13th October, 2008; The husband filed his affidavit of means. He lived in rented two bedroom accommodation in London. He paid children's school fees. He had pension interest of £58,143. He worked for solicitors, and earned net salary of £78,541 per annum, plus bonus of £10,000. He requested return of personal belongings at the Jersey property.
(x) 5th November, 2008; Welfare report dated 3rd November filed. Children did not want contact with father. Respondent filed form 15. Directions sought following the wife's failure to file an affidavit of means.
(xi) 12th November, 2008; Wife (now acting for herself) ordered to file her sworn affidavit within 7 days. An un-sworn copy filed. The un-sworn affidavit shows debts of at least £37,000 plus credit card debts and arrears on mortgages on both properties. The Jersey property was worth about £900,000 less mortgage of £501,662 and the English property was worth £585,000 to £600,000 less mortgage (at 9th October, 2008) of £422,664.
(xii) 1st December, 2008; Directions made:- questionnaires to be exchanged and case review hearing fixed. Possible application for interim maintenance to be heard on 24th February.
(xiii) 20th January, 2009; Case review hearing. Viberts represent wife. Questionnaire dates re-fixed. Further directions re interim maintenance and re return of items from the Jersey property.
(xiv) 21st January, 2009; Form 16 filed by Viberts re spousal maintenance and property transfer.
(xv) 9th February, 2009; Form 15 summons filed by respondent re date fixed for case review hearing and re return of items from the Jersey property.
(xvi) 11th February, 2009; Wife swore her affidavit of means, substantially the same as un-sworn version. See above. Husband filed affidavit requesting return of his possessions.
(xvii) 11th February 2009; Further directions:- Interim maintenance to be adjourned until 24th March.
(xviii) 24th February, 2009; Directions made re pleadings on conduct. Affidavits to be sworn re the "LC agreement".
(xix) 24th March, 2009; Directions to be given on 29th April when both parties' newly appointed advocates to attend.
(xx) 27th April, 2009; Husband applied (via new lawyers Voisin & Cc.) for contact.
(xxi) 6th May, 2009; Wife's new lawyer (Sinels) applied for orders that husband's applications for residence or contact be dismissed.
(xxii) 19th May, 2009; Further directions by consent.
(xxiii) 17th June, 2009; Directions re payment of wife's health care policy by husband. Wife's undertaking re non-disposal of the English property to be lifted. Order made for "no contact" by father.
(xxiv) 23rd July, 2009; Sinels informed the Court that they no longer act for the wife.
(xxv) 12th August, 2009; Directions given.
(xxvi) 1st September, 2009; Wife swore affidavits with regard to:-
(a) The LC agreement;
(b) conduct.
(xxvii) 28th September, 2009; Voisin & Co to provide wife (acting for herself) with copies of papers including husband's responses to wife's questionnaire.
(xxviii) 18th November, 2009; Directions for final hearing given.
(xxix) 15th December, 2009; On the recommendation of Dr Bryn Williams, a guardian was to be appointed to represent the children in ancillary relief proceedings. Final hearing dates, 1st and 2nd February, 2010, to stand.
(xxx) 15th January, 2010; Husband swore and filed affidavit of evidence, and filed a chronology, statement of issues, open statement and schedule of assets, liabilities and income. (Not agreed with wife).
(xxxi) 22nd January, 2010:- Baker Platt gave notice that they now acted for the wife.
(xxxii) 1st February, 2010:- Final hearing vacated. Reasons were that:-
(a) Baker Platt were only recently instructed and did not have sufficient time to prepare, and
(b) a letter dated 15th January was received from Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants, saying that they are instructed by the wife to provide assistance as forensic accountants. Their investigations will take 4 weeks to prepare, once they have all the documentation.
(xxxiii) 5th February, 2010; Report of children's guardian, Jane Whittaker, dated 4th February, filed.
(xxxiv) 24th February, 2010; Advocates attended for directions. Baker Platt wanted to file yet another questionnaire, which was allowed. Further directions made, which included the requirement for the wife to file her updated supporting evidence. A case review hearing fixed for 13th April, 2010.
(xxxv)8th April, 2010; Baker Platt give notice that they no longer acted for the wife.
(xxxvi) 13th April, 2010; The wife, acting for herself, was not aware that a further questionnaire had been filed and replied to by the husband. Lee Ingram, who appeared for the husband, agreed to forward to her a copy of both documents by email that afternoon. Wife had not filed her updated supporting evidence. The wife told me she has instructed 9 different lawyers and incurred costs of £150,000 and yet she "hasn't even yet begun to get financial disclosure". She intended to appeal any order made by the Registrar.
2. My reasons for referral to the Court are that:-
(i) The wife appears to have lost confidence in the Family Court jurisdiction and will not accept any order made by me.
(ii) Unless the latest answers (which I have not seen) to the wife's recent questionnaire reveal some hidden wealth, her pursuit of financial ancillary relief may not even remotely recoup the costs incurred to date by her. Unpalatable though it might be, it may be for the Court above to consider dismissing some or all of her claim for relief. The on-going dispute with her husband could, in my view, be described as a "vendetta".
(iii) The delay between separation ("the end of 1995") and the present has made it difficult, as a matter of practicality, for the Court to adjudicate on the dispute.
(iv) I have concerns about the wife being sufficiently capable (mentally as well as emotionally) to conduct matrimonial proceedings on her own (even with the help of her brother who has been acting as her "MacKenzie friend"). She either does not wish to, or, alternatively, does not have sufficient funds to instruct lawyers consistently (and possibly an accountant).
(v) In the midst of the confusion and lack of available cash to pay for basic needs, the two children, although enjoying a high class education, are suffering significant deprivation when they are at home with their mother in Jersey. The guardian draws attention to the need to draw the case to a conclusion "as a matter of urgency" and yet to "try to ensure adequate financial provision to enable the children to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
(vi) Having failed to bring their case to a close within a reasonable period, I owe it to the parties and the children to bring matters to a head (or to a close) before a different judge, as soon as may be just.
No Authorities