The court was asked as to how a Family Division judge might decide whether or not to publish an ancillary relief judgment at the conclusion of a trial during which one of the parties conspired to present a perjured case. H and family members had been found to have manufactured documents intended to hide H’s interest in a family business, to the extent of andpound;46 million or more. The judgment contained details of the respected shipping business. The defendants said that the interest of third parties would be adversely affected, injuring their human rights.
Held: The wife’s appeal succeeded, and the order for anonymisation should be withdrawn subject to necessary redactions. The court noted the changes as to Children Act proceedings, but: ‘this debate has not focused on ancillary relief proceedings. Public interest has never been in the administration of justice in this special field. It is easier to identify public curiosity concerning the lives and fortunes of either the famous or the rich.’ The threat of public judgment should be used as aid to enforcement. The issues should be kept separate.
Thorpe LJ stated: ‘However ancillary relief proceedings are marked by features absent in other civil proceedings:
i) The proceedings are quasi-inquisitorial. The judge must be satisfied that he has, or at least that he has sought, all the information he needs to discharge the duty imposed on him to find the fairest solution.
ii) The parties owe the court a duty, a duty of full, frank and clear disclosure. The duty is absolute.
iii) Sadly the duty is as much breached as observed. The payer’s sense of the obligation is distorted by the emotions aroused by the payee. Breaches take many forms.
iv) Breach by omission is commonplace. A bank account or some other asset is not declared. That tactic gives rise to the counter, filching and copying the contents of desk, briefcase or computer (now proscribed by the decision of this court in Tchenguiz v Imerman [2010] 2 FLR 814, the effects of which have yet to be worked out).
Breaches by commission are more serious. An omission once detected can be excused as an oversight. A breach by commission is plain perjury and thus risks serious consequences. The present case is a good example. The conspiracy within the family to protect the family business resulted in the presentation to the court of forged and back-dated documents.
Thorpe, Stanley Burnton, Tomlimson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1315, [2011] Fam Law 237, [2011] 1 FCR 61, [2011] 1 FLR 142
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom ECHR 2001
The provisions of rule 4.16(7) providing for confidentiality in children proceedings were Convention compliant: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the . .
Cited – J v V (Disclosure: Offshore Corporations) FD 2003
A prenuptial agreement had been signed on the eve of marriage without advice or disclosure and without allowance for arrival of children. Coleridge J also considered the use of documents recovered by a party by unauthorised or improper means. He . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – FZ v SZ and Others (ancillary relief: conduct: valuations) FD 5-Jul-2010
The court heard an application for ancillary relief and variation of a post nuptial settlement. Each party made allegations of misconduct against the other, and the litigation had been bitter and protracted. W had obtained copies of H’s private . .
Cited – WF v NF and Others FD 2007
. .
Cited – K v K (Financial Capital Relief; and Management of Difficult Cases) FD 17-May-2005
W applied for full ancillary relief arising upon the breakdown of her marriage. She copied a number of the husband’s documents, rummaged through dustbins and took documents from her husband’s pockets. When she was no longer living in the former . .
Cited by:
Cited – NG v SG FD 9-Dec-2011
The court considered what to do when it was said that a party to ancillary relief proceedings on divorce had failed to make proper disclosure of his assets. H appealed against an award of a capital sum in such proceedimngs.
Held:
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Human Rights, Media
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.426467