A v B [2017] EWFC B9 (3 February 2017)

A v B [2017] EWFC B9 (3 February 2017)

The husband's application to set aside the 2010 consent order failed because the change in the children's residence did not invalidate the fundamental basis of the order, the application was not made promptly, and third-party interests (the Intervener) had arisen. The order, though executory, did not justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWFC B9
Parties
Applicant (husband): A; Respondent (wife): B; Intervener (wife's Second Husband): C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Financial Remedy / Set Aside Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Husband's applications dismissed; costs awarded against husband with enforcement postponed.
Legal Topics
Set Aside of Financial Remedy Order, Executory Orders, Barder Events, Variation of Consent Orders, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Set Aside of Financial Remedy Order Executory Orders Barder Events Variation of Consent Orders Costs in Family Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant (husband)

B

Respondent (wife)

C

Intervener (wife's Second Husband)

Procedural Posture

Family Financial Remedy / Set Aside Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2010 financial remedy consent order should be set aside due to a Barder event or as an executory order
  2. 2 Whether the wife breached her best endeavours undertaking regarding mortgage releases
  3. 3 Costs consequences of the applications

Ratio Decidendi

The husband's application to set aside the 2010 consent order failed because the change in the children's residence did not invalidate the fundamental basis of the order, the application was not made promptly, and third-party interests (the Intervener) had arisen. The order, though executory, did not justify reopening as there was no inequity in enforcement. The wife was not in breach of her best endeavours undertaking. Costs were awarded against the husband, but enforcement was postponed until after the youngest child's 18th birthday.

Court Disposition

Husband's applications dismissed; costs awarded against husband with enforcement postponed.

Orders

  • Husband's set aside application of 1 April 2016 dismissed.
  • Husband's Schedule 1 application of 18 July 2016 dismissed.