Maughan v Wilmot [2020] EWHC 885 (Fam) (16 April 2020)

Maughan v Wilmot [2020] EWHC 885 (Fam) (16 April 2020)

The respondent/husband breached the freezing orders and the order of 23 March 2016 by failing to maintain and disclose unencumbered assets as required, and by making unauthorised withdrawals. The costs incurred by the wife and receiver since October 2019 were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the husband's misrepresentations and litigation misconduct, and are payable by the husband on the indemnity basis.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 885 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant/wife: Viki Natasha Maughan; Respondent/husband: Richard Michael Edmund Wilmot
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs and Enforcement Hearing
Outcome
Costs orders in favour of the wife and receiver; increased freezing order; respondent found in breach of orders.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Costs, Enforcement of Financial Orders, Receivership, Misrepresentation, Civil Restraint Orders
Family Law Freezing Orders Costs Enforcement of Financial Orders Receivership Misrepresentation Civil Restraint Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viki Natasha Maughan

Applicant/wife

Richard Michael Edmund Wilmot

Respondent/husband

Procedural Posture

Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs and Enforcement Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent/husband breached freezing orders and subsequent court orders regarding unencumbered assets
  2. 2 Whether the costs incurred by the applicant/wife and receiver since October 2019 should be paid by the respondent/husband
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of costs claimed is reasonable and payable on the indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent/husband breached the freezing orders and the order of 23 March 2016 by failing to maintain and disclose unencumbered assets as required, and by making unauthorised withdrawals. The costs incurred by the wife and receiver since October 2019 were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the husband's misrepresentations and litigation misconduct, and are payable by the husband on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Costs orders in favour of the wife and receiver; increased freezing order; respondent found in breach of orders.

Orders

  • The husband will pay the wife's costs of £42,098 pursuant to the October 2019 judgment.
  • The husband will pay the wife's further costs of £43,529 incurred since the October 2019 judgment.