FA v OA and intervenor (financial remedies - s37 application to set aside)

FA v OA and intervenor (financial remedies - s37 application to set aside)

The wife failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loan agreement was a sham. The evidence, including bank statements and the chronology of events, supported the existence of a genuine loan. The loan and charging order did not amount to a reviewable disposition under section 23 MFPA 1984. The application for relief under that section was dismissed. Costs of the preliminary issue were awarded against the wife on an indemnity basis.

Parties
Applicant Wife: Mrs FA; Respondent Husband: Mr OA; Intervenor: Intervenor Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy (mfpa 1984) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue and Costs
Outcome
Application for relief under section 23 MFPA 1984 dismissed; costs orders made against applicant wife.
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Recognition of Foreign Divorce, Financial Relief After Foreign Divorce, Charging Orders, Jurisdiction, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Family Law Matrimonial Finance Private International Law Sham Transactions Recognition of Foreign Divorce Financial Relief After Foreign Divorce Charging Orders Jurisdiction +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs FA

Applicant Wife

Mr OA

Respondent Husband

Intervenor Ltd

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy (mfpa 1984) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan agreement between the husband and the intervenor was a sham intended to defeat the wife's claim for financial relief
  2. 2 Whether the loan and subsequent charging order amount to a reviewable disposition under section 23 MFPA 1984
  3. 3 Whether the wife should pay the costs of the preliminary issue on an indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The wife failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loan agreement was a sham. The evidence, including bank statements and the chronology of events, supported the existence of a genuine loan. The loan and charging order did not amount to a reviewable disposition under section 23 MFPA 1984. The application for relief under that section was dismissed. Costs of the preliminary issue were awarded against the wife on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application for relief under section 23 MFPA 1984 dismissed; costs orders made against applicant wife.

Orders

  • The intervenor is discharged from the proceedings.
  • The applicant wife shall pay the respondent husband's costs of the preliminary issue on the indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, payable upon conclusion of the MFPA application.