UPDATE: Non-Disclosure in Financial Remedy Proceedings

In November 2012, I wrote about Non-Disclosure inFinancial Remedy Proceedings. The question I was posing was whether the family courts were doing enough to discourage parties in financial remedy proceedings from failing to provide financial disclosure. The cases I looked at, which included Young v Young [2013] EWHC 34 (Fam), Petrodel Resources Ltd& Ors v Prest & Ors involved the Courts having to make decisions in contested hearings. Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court look at what the correct approach is when a settlement is reached outside of court and non-disclosure is discovered at a later date.

In my previous post I set out the basis for the obligation to provide full and frank disclosure and set out some of the consequences for those parties who refused to comply:

The duty to provide full and frank disclosure is an inherent part of UK family law and is set out in the pre-action protocol annexed to Practice Direction 9A – Application for a Financial Remedy of the FPR 2010.  If a party fails to provide such disclosure, particularly if they have been specifically ordered to do so by the Court, then in addition to adverse inferences being drawn, that party could also face imprisonment, a fine, a costs order against them, inability to proceed with their application (Hadkinson Orders) or they might even face criminal consequences under the Fraud Act 2006.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Gohil v Gohil [2015]UKSC 61, confirms that there is a further consequence to non-disclosure. Both cases involved wives who had given up their entitlement to a full hearing of their financial claims and had instead reached an agreement with their respective husbands as to how much they would receive. It later emerged that both husbands had fraudulently withheld information that was relevant to their financial position at the time those agreements were reached and considered by the Court. In both cases the Supreme Court ruled that the original orders should be set aside.

The cases also confirmed that the duty to provide full, frank and honest disclosure is not only central to any agreement being valid but is a duty owed to the Court which cannot be eroded or vitiated by agreement or subsequent events.

In any event, it would seem that the massage from the Supreme Court is clear. Non-disclosure will not be tolerated in financial remedy proceedings!

Failed to comply with a Court order? There will be consequences!

If you have opened a newspaper recently then you will no doubt have acquired at least some knowledge about the divorce of Michelle Young from tycoon Scot Young.  This divorce has been in and out of the press for various reasons over the last seven years and the final hearing in the financial remedy proceedings have been ongoing at the High Court before Mr Justice Moor over the last few weeks. If you believe Ms Young then the total value of the assets being disputed is a whopping £700m but according to Mr Young he is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of approximately £28m.  Mr Young claims that he lost his millions around the time the couple split and has been living (somewhat extravagantly) since then off the generosity of his rich and famous friends. Ms Young’s case is that Mr Young planned an exit strategy to keep the money from her once he realised that the marriage was in difficulties and that the money has been hidden in various offshore schemes and is being fed back to him via the aforementioned friends one of whom is currently paying Mr Young’s rent of £4,000 per month.

Several of these benefactors submitted witness statements on Mr Young’s behalf to help prove that the vast amounts of money they are paying him are indeed generous gifts and not part of some greater fraud. Mr Young seemed to think that submitting said statements would be sufficient to achieve this and has argued that there was no need for any of his witnesses to be  cross examinationed. Mr Justice Moor disagreed and the likes of Sir Philip Green (Topshop) and Richard Caring (The Ivy/Annabel’s) were called to be cross examined by Ms Young’s lawyers last week. 

Procedure for Relying on Hearsay Evidence in Family Proceedings

Whilst the issue of whether the witnesses would need to attend for cross examination may have been dealt with as a pre-trial issue at the start of the hearing, if Mr Young was playing by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 then he should have issued a notice to rely on the witness statements as hearsay evidence under FPR 23.2 (which in turn refers to section 2(1)(a) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995) together with an explanation as to why those witnesses need not attend.  This would have then given Ms Young the opportunity to make an application under FPR 23.4 to call those witnesses herself, which may have been what has happened here, and/or give notice of her intention to challenge the credibility of such witnesses under FPR 23.5.  If it was found that the witnesses need not attend then Ms Young would still have had the option of asking that the Court gives reduced weight to the evidence set out in the statements under section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This would have still be the case in the event that any of the witnesses failed to turn up which would have been a very risky thing to do if the Court had ordered them to attend as this would put them in breach of a Court order.

Why so risky?

There can be no doubt that the Family Courts are taking breaches of Court orders more seriously these days and indeed Mr Young himself has already spent time in prison earlier this yearfor failing to comply with a Court order which stipulated that he had to provide financial disclosure to his wife. This trend is no doubt set to continue following Sir James Munby’s comments in his 7th View from the President’s Chambers where he said that attitudes to orders made by the family courts were “slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious.” He went on to say that “The court is entitled to expect – and from now on will demand – strict compliance with all such orders.” These comments are aimed at everyone involved in the family law process including public bodies, parties and non-parties to proceedings and these sentiments were further spelled out by Sir Munby in his judgment in the recent cases of Re W (A Child), Re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ1177 in which he said “Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence”. The message is far from ambiguous and there have been other recent decisions where there have been serious consequences for contempt of court:

• Re Davies [2013] EWHC 3294 – A mother had removed a child from the jurisdiction and her parents and her sister were ordered to provide information as to their whereabouts. Mr Justice Keehan found that each of them had lied to the Court and / or failed to provide information in accordance with Court orders and found them in contempt at a hearing on 25 October 2013. The parents and sister were remanded in custody until the sentencing hearing on 31 October 2013 by which time the daughter had heard what had happened and agreed to return to the jurisdiction with the child (a factor which weighed heavily in their favour). They were each sentenced to 12 days in prison, to serve 6 of which time served would count. Keehan J indicated that, had the daughter not been located and agreed to return, the mother would have been looking at months in prison (See Brown v Davies ([2013] EWHC 3523 (Fam) for sentencing judgement).

• Ball v Shepstone [2013] EWCC 7 (Fam) – A father was found to be in contempt for failing to file a Form E in accordance with the terms of a court order dated 15 July 2013. He was due to file the Form E on 12 August 2013 but failed to do so. He was subsequently served with committal proceedings on 16 September 2013, and at a hearing on 03 October 2013, he was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to fourteen days in prison and ordered to pay the wife’s costs.

Being cross examined is not fun, it can be a stressful and unpleasant experience, and it is therefore not surprising that people will try to avoid it if they can. The lesson from the Young case, or at least the most recent lesson, would seem to be that if you are asked to, or are advising someone on, providing evidence in family proceedings then you/they had better be prepared to stand up in court and answer some difficult questions on that evidence. In terms of complying with Court orders, few practitioners would ever advise a client not to comply but the emphasis on the consequences of non-compliance may need to be cranked up a notch in light of these recent developments.

As usual thoughts and comments are welcome.

A final judgment in the Young v Young divorce is expected to be given on Friday, 22 November 2013.

Big City. Big Money. Big Divorce

Word count: 838     Time to read: 5 minutes

The jurisdiction of England and Wales, and London in particular, has gained a reputation over recent years for being the divorce capital of the world and the favoured jurisdiction for wives to get big pay outs from their wealthy soon to be ex-husbands. The recent decision of M v M [2013] EWHC 2534 (Fam), where the wife was awarded a cool £54m (the largest ever pay-out in a contested divorce), will no doubt fuel this perception. But should it?

According the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, when deciding how the matrimonial assets should be divided up the English Courts are required to take into account “all the circumstance of the case” and a list of non-exhaustive factors to which the court is to give regard are included in section 25 of the Act.  Those factors include the length of the marriage, contributions made within the marriage and the standard of living enjoyed before the breakdown of the marriage. In M v M all of the family’s wealth had been generated during that time through the husband’s business enterprises. Under English law, a spouse who contributes to the marriage by taking care of the family’s home life (and in doing so often sacrifices her own earning capacity) is usually held to have made an equal contribution to the marriage and after a long marriage the starting point for division of assets will generally be 50/50. In M v M the parties had been married for 17 years and so the wife’s award, whilst record breaking, represented only 50% of the ascertainable matrimonial assets.

Those coming from jurisdictions where wives do not receive such generous pay outs, may find such a judgement difficult to accept particularly if they consider that the wife did not really “work” herself during the marriage and enjoyed a high standard of living thanks to the husband’s efforts. However, there is more to this case than a simple division of matrimonial assets after a long marriage and it would be a mistake to think that the case of M v M was nothing more than an example of a wife looking to use the English court’s generosity to get her hands on as much of her husband’s hard earned cash as she possibly can.  A read through of Mrs Justice Eleanor King’s judgment quickly reveals that much of the wife’s three year legal battle was preoccupied with the husband’s flagrant disregard for the legal system and his attempts, at all costs, to keep all of the family’s wealth out of sight and out of reach.  His infractions included hiding assets within company structures, forging signatures to facilitate the transfer of assets, moving assets offshore, using his employees and other family members to distance himself from transactions, lying in his affidavit, disobeying court orders, issuing malicious satellite litigation and failing to attend hearings. The final award was not 50% of all of the matrimonial assets but only those which the wife’s legal team had managed to find and the court actually acknowledged that the wife could have asked for more on the basis that there was likely to be many more millions squirreled away as a result of the husband’s schemes.

It would also be a mistake to think that Mrs M is enjoying her big pay out. The award is only the first step to actually getting what the court had decided she is entitled to particularly given her husband’s determination to avoid participating fairly in the process. Just like Yasmin Prest (whose husband’s non-disclosure contributing to the Supreme Court upholding an order for £17m worth of property to be transferred to her) and Michelle Young (whose husband served time in prison for failing to comply with court orders), Mrs M will appreciate that a court order is little more than a piece of paper if you can’t actually enforce it. Enforcement can often mean more costs and many more months of fighting and if the assets are offshore there may be little light at the end of the litigation tunnel.

But despite such difficulties, London’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world is unlikely to be challenged any time soon and not just because wives want their fair share of the wealth but because that wealth wants to be in London in the first place. London is an incredible city with many international high net worth families traveling from other jurisdictions to experience everything that it has to offer whether on a temporary or more permanent basis.  Those wanting to enjoy the benefits of having a home in here may want to give some thought as to the consequences of the English courts being able to accept jurisdiction should their marriage come to an end.  The risks (for both parties) can be mitigated through the use of a pre-nuptial agreement (or post-nuptial agreement if already married) and such agreements have become increasingly popular in recent years since word got out that the English courts will uphold them as long as certain conditions are met.

UPDATE: Non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. The Family Court uses its teeth!

In November 2012, I looked at what the Family Courts can do if someone fails to comply with their obligations in relation to financial disclosure.  One of the powers the court has is to commit someone to prison and whilst this really is a last resort, the Family Court this week did just that when Mr Justice Moor sent Scot Young, a former fixer and millionaire property developer, to jail for 6 months.  The sentence had been issued back in 2009 as a suspended sentence and Mr Young had been given several opportunities since then to comply with his obligations.  This week the Court had had enough of his “absurd” and “next to useless” excuses. This is definitely something to keep in mind when advising clients about the consequences of providing full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings.

Mr Young, is no stranger to the far reaching powers of the family courts with his passport being withheld in 2012 when he claimed he wanted to leave the country to undertake charity work.  Michelle Young, who is seeking the financial remedy against her estranged husband, hasbeen trying to get to the bottom of her husband’s money for years and a full hearing on her application is due later this year.