The parties had divorced some twenty years previously, but apparently without ancillary relief orders, the parties at the time being relatively poor. H was now wealthy and W applied for lump sum provision. H replied that there was no no evidence either way to say whether ancillary relief claims had been dealt with.
Held: H’s appeal succeedd, and the claim was dismissed. ‘Rule 4.4 was intended to ensure that the power to strike out in financial remedy proceedings mirrored the court’s power to strike out in civil proceedings. As in civil proceedings the rule is complementary to the court’s inherent powers of case management.
I conclude that the judge fell into error in his construction of the Rule and approached his essential task too narrowly, partly as a consequence of the way in which the husband’s application was presented. It was not apt simply to ask was the delay inordinate and, if yes was prejudice to the husband greater than the prejudice to the wife. He had to have regard to all relevant considerations within the history and exercise his case management powers not just to protect against the greater prejudice but also to husband the resources of the court.’
Thorpe, Jackson, Tomlinson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 495, [2013] 3 FCR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 166, [2014] 1 FLR 246, [2013] Fam Law 1126, [2013] 1 WLR 3525
Bailii, WLRD
Family Procedure Rules 2010 4.4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rossi v Rossi FD 26-Jun-2006
W sought to challenge transactions entered into by H anticipating ancillary relief proceedings on their divorce. Nicholas Mostyn QC J said: ‘While of course no rigid rule can be expressed for the infinite variety of facts that arise in ancillary . .
Cited – A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Payment of Legal Fees) FD 2001
The court made an order to provide that the monies paid by way of maintenance pending suit in respect of any matter can be brought into account by the judge making the order in the ancillary relief proceedings. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.503467