8 June 2016
Contested application to obtain decree absolute prior to the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings
Facts
- The wife petitioned for divorce contemporaneously with issuing a Form A for a financial remedy.
- In the substantive financial remedy proceedings, the wife asserted that the husband was a billionaire by virtue of interests in complex, offshore structures. She alleged that the husband had not complied with his duty of full and frank disclosure. The husband’s Form E stated that he had net assets of £445,532.
- Decree nisi was pronounced subject to the husband undertaking not to apply for decree absolute without giving 14 days notice to the wife.
- The wife did not apply for decree absolute.
- Prior to the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings, the husband applied for decree absolute pursuant to s.9(2) of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The wife opposed the application.
Held
- Moor J dismissed the application and made an order for costs against the husband.
- The requirement for opposing decree absolute is “special circumstances”, derived from the case of Dart v Dart [1996] 2 FLR 286 [4].
- Moor J found that this was an exceptional case, involving offshore trust structures [14]. It can make a very real difference, particularly in offshore jurisdictions, whether a litigant is a spouse or a former spouse [14]
- The wife therefore established special circumstances that were sufficient to override the otherwise strong presumption in favour of granting decree absolute [18].
- A party does not have to satisfy the court of the “exact prejudice” before it can defer decree absolute [18].
- Order for costs made against the husband. This was a discrete application, separate from the substantive financial remedy proceedings, and the wife had succeeded [21].
