AFW v RFH

AFW v RFH

The respondent has deliberately failed to comply with the final financial remedy order and has no intention of doing so. The court has the power to vary the order for sale and its consequential provisions, and it is just and necessary to require the respondent to vacate the property by a set date to enable the sale. The applicant is entitled to the chattels she seeks due to the respondent's non-compliance. The respondent must complete the pension sharing and bank account closure documents or the court will do so. The respondent's conduct warrants an indemnity costs order.

Parties
Applicant: AFW; Respondent: RFH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Family / Enforcement of Financial Remedy Order; Applications to Vary Order for Sale, Determine Division of Chattels, and Execute Pension and Bank Account Documents
Outcome
Applications by applicant granted; respondent's applications refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Financial Orders, Variation of Order for Sale, Division of Matrimonial Property, Pension Sharing, Costs, Occupation of Matrimonial Home
Family Law Enforcement of Financial Orders Variation of Order for Sale Division of Matrimonial Property Pension Sharing Costs Occupation of Matrimonial Home

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AFW

Applicant

RFH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Enforcement of Financial Remedy Order; Applications to Vary Order for Sale, Determine Division of Chattels, and Execute Pension and Bank Account Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in breach of the final financial remedy order
  2. 2 Whether the order for sale should be varied to require the respondent to vacate the property
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be granted the chattels she seeks

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent has deliberately failed to comply with the final financial remedy order and has no intention of doing so. The court has the power to vary the order for sale and its consequential provisions, and it is just and necessary to require the respondent to vacate the property by a set date to enable the sale. The applicant is entitled to the chattels she seeks due to the respondent's non-compliance. The respondent must complete the pension sharing and bank account closure documents or the court will do so. The respondent's conduct warrants an indemnity costs order.

Court Disposition

Applications by applicant granted; respondent's applications refused

Orders

  • Respondent to vacate the former family home by 4pm on 23 August 2023, giving applicant sole possession
  • If respondent remains after that date, applicant may apply for a warrant for removal