Thursfield v Thursfield (Re Delay) [2011] EWHC 3713 (Ch) (06 December 2011)

Thursfield v Thursfield (Re Delay) [2011] EWHC 3713 (Ch) (06 December 2011)

Delay in bringing proceedings is not a bar where protection of assets is still possible; risk of imminent flight justified the freezing order; speculative points did not improperly influence the court's decision.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3713 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Linda Jane Thursfield; Defendant: David Thursfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment on Delay and Clarification
Outcome
Proceedings allowed to continue; clarification provided on points raised.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Freezing Orders, Delay in Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Freezing Orders Delay in Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Jane Thursfield

Claimant

David Thursfield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment on Delay and Clarification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in bringing proceedings bars enforcement
  2. 2 Whether risk of imminent flight justified freezing order
  3. 3 Whether speculative points improperly influenced the court

Ratio Decidendi

Delay in bringing proceedings is not a bar where protection of assets is still possible; risk of imminent flight justified the freezing order; speculative points did not improperly influence the court's decision.

Court Disposition

Proceedings allowed to continue; clarification provided on points raised.

Orders

  • Protection of pension fund and identification of other assets to proceed.
  • Freezing order remains applicable if defendant enters jurisdiction.