A recent divorce case which led to “feral, unprincipled and unnecessarily expensive financial remedy proceedings” has led to heavy scrutiny and criticism by Family Court Judge Stephen Wildblood QC.
In the case, which involved a divorcing couple, both of whom were found to have lied in parts of their evidence, the judge described the proceedings as “a disgraceful example of how financial remedy proceedings should not be conducted”.
Details of the case related to settlement agreements around the couple’s matrimonial homes to the value of around £730,000, which according to the judge “should have been simple”, but instead was made unnecessarily complex by the wife’s claims that her ex-husband has beneficial interests in two other properties and a controlling influence in a restaurant. Wildblood added that the parties, including the various other respondents who were sued by the wife, had racked up more than £200,000 in costs.
It was thought that the wife was likely to have to pay three of the respondents’ costs, with Wildblood stating that: “I cannot see how she can avoid paying the costs of [those three respondents], subject to assessment.”
Wildblood added:
“As I have made plain throughout this judgment, I consider that these proceedings are a disgraceful example of how financial remedy proceedings should not be conducted. The wife may wish to take advice about why her case was presented in this way and why so much expense has been incurred.
I intend that any applications for permission to appeal should be refused. Given the level of conflict in this case I would wish to emphasise that, as far as I am concerned, this is a final and complete judgment and I do not expect to receive further argument about matters that I have decided within it.”
