12 October 2016
Application pursuant to Part III MFPA 1984 for financial provision following an overseas divorce in which the husband failed to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders
Facts
- After a 46-year marriage, W issued her petition for divorce in England in January 2015. H contested jurisdiction and petitioned in Portugal. On 8 July 2015, W was served with a Talaq, notwithstanding the Portuguese proceedings. It transpired that H had divorced W by Talaq on 20 March 2015, which had been confirmed in the UAE on 23 March 2015.
- Mostyn J granted permission for W to apply under Part III MFPA 1984, made an order for MPS, payments by way of LSPO, an order for costs and directions for the exchange of Forms E and FDA documents. H did not comply.
- W was granted a worldwide freezing order, interim third party debt and charging orders and final charging orders in respect of the unpaid orders. H continued to fail to comply.
- W applied for a revised timetable with a penal notice. In response, H’s Portuguese solicitors wrote directly to the RCJ setting out objections. An unless order was made by the trial judge.
- H was heavily engaged in the process in Portugal. He applied for a declaration that enforcement of the English worldwide freezing order would be unlawful, but was unsuccessful. At trial, H did not attend and was not represented.
Held
- When the court is satisfied that the disclosure given by a party is materially deficient, it has a duty to consider drawing adverse inferences. These inferences must be properly drawn and reasonable.
- If the Court concludes that funds have been hidden, it should attempt a realistic and reasonable quantification of those funds, even in broad terms.
- There must be a sound evidential basis for reaching a conclusion as to the scale of undisclosed assets. In the absence of direct evidence, the Court may conduct an analysis of lifestyle.
- The Court must be careful to ensure that a non-discloser should not be able to procure a better result than if the truth were told.
- The fact that these proceedings came under Part III, MFPA 1984, as opposed to under MCA 1983 made no appreciable difference to the outcome.
- On the evidence available, the court concluded that the assets were roughly £130m. W had a sharing claim to one half of these assets.
- H was treated as having submitted to the Court for the purposes of Part III application, as he communicated without challenging jurisdiction. He had been afforded every opportunity of being heard.
