WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B) (15 February 2024)

WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B) (15 February 2024)

The respondent is in deliberate and continuing contempt of court by failing to comply with maintenance and disclosure orders, and his non-compliance impedes the course of justice by prejudicing the applicant's ability to pursue her case. There is no other realistic and effective remedy, and the Hadkinson order is proportionate and necessary. The respondent's application to vary is not based on inability to pay, and enforcement should not be stayed.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 116 (B)
Parties
Applicant: W; Respondent: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Procedural Posture
D50 K Enforcement and Hadkinson Order Application / Post Final Order, Enforcement and Variation Proceedings
Outcome
Hadkinson order granted; costs order made against respondent
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Financial Orders, Hadkinson Orders, Contempt of Court, Costs Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Financial Orders Hadkinson Orders Contempt of Court Costs Orders

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

Parties

W

Applicant

H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

D50 K Enforcement and Hadkinson Order Application / Post Final Order, Enforcement and Variation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Hadkinson order should be made preventing the respondent from pursuing his application to vary until arrears and costs are paid
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is in deliberate and continuing contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether there is an impediment to the course of justice justifying the order

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is in deliberate and continuing contempt of court by failing to comply with maintenance and disclosure orders, and his non-compliance impedes the course of justice by prejudicing the applicant's ability to pursue her case. There is no other realistic and effective remedy, and the Hadkinson order is proportionate and necessary. The respondent's application to vary is not based on inability to pay, and enforcement should not be stayed.

Court Disposition

Hadkinson order granted; costs order made against respondent

Orders

  • Hadkinson order: Respondent is prevented from pursuing his application to vary unless and until he pays £61,901.62 in arrears, £13,687.20 in outstanding costs, and £7,252.80 in additional costs to the applicant.
  • Summary assessment of costs: Respondent to pay £10,932.60 for this hearing within 14 days, added to the sums due under the Hadkinson order.