H v W

H v W

W deliberately frustrated the implementation of the 2021 order, causing H quantifiable loss, particularly in relation to Property A and additional borrowing on Property B. The Thwaite jurisdiction applies, justifying a lump sum award to compensate H. W's application to set aside the 2022 order fails as she did not act promptly, had no good reason for non-attendance, and lacks merit. Enforcement by charging order and, if necessary, order for sale is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: W
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy / Final Hearing on Enforcement, Variation, and Set Aside Applications
Outcome
W's application to set aside the 2022 order is refused. H's Thwaite application succeeds in part. Lump sum and enforcement orders granted. Costs awarded to H.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Enforcement of Orders, Variation of Financial Orders, Executory Orders, Costs
Family Law Financial Remedies Enforcement of Orders Variation of Financial Orders Executory Orders Costs

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Applicant

W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy / Final Hearing on Enforcement, Variation, and Set Aside Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct justifies setting aside the 2022 order under FPR 2010 r.27.5
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation under the Thwaite jurisdiction for losses caused by the respondent's frustration of the 2021 order
  3. 3 Appropriate enforcement mechanisms for outstanding sums

Ratio Decidendi

W deliberately frustrated the implementation of the 2021 order, causing H quantifiable loss, particularly in relation to Property A and additional borrowing on Property B. The Thwaite jurisdiction applies, justifying a lump sum award to compensate H. W's application to set aside the 2022 order fails as she did not act promptly, had no good reason for non-attendance, and lacks merit. Enforcement by charging order and, if necessary, order for sale is appropriate.

Court Disposition

W's application to set aside the 2022 order is refused. H's Thwaite application succeeds in part. Lump sum and enforcement orders granted. Costs awarded to H.

Orders

  • W to pay H a lump sum of £100,000 plus the outstanding amount of the additional borrowing on Property B.
  • Final charging order on W's home to secure sums due under the 2022 order.