Maughan v Wilmot

Maughan v Wilmot

The respondent breached the freezing order and subsequent court orders by failing to maintain and disclose unencumbered assets as required, and by removing funds without proper notice or compliance. The costs incurred by the applicant and receiver were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the respondent's misconduct and must be paid by the respondent.

Parties
Applicant/wife: Viki Natasha Maughan; Respondent/husband: Richard Michael Edmund Wilmot
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Family / Post Judgment Costs and Enforcement Hearing
Outcome
Costs orders against respondent; revised freezing order; applications for positive relief by respondent refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Costs, Enforcement of Judgments, Pension Assets, Civil Restraint Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Costs Enforcement of Judgments Pension Assets 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 5 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 / Post Judgment Costs and Enforcement Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the freezing order and subsequent court orders
  2. 2 Whether the costs incurred by the applicant and receiver should be paid by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the court can order draw-down or transfer of pension funds to satisfy costs

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached the freezing order and subsequent court orders by failing to maintain and disclose unencumbered assets as required, and by removing funds without proper notice or compliance. The costs incurred by the applicant and receiver were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the respondent's misconduct and must be paid by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Costs orders against respondent; revised freezing order; applications for positive relief by respondent refused.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant's costs of £42,098 pursuant to October 2019 judgment
  • Respondent to pay applicant's further costs of £43,529 incurred since October 2019 judgment