The Family Court judge in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreement), Mr Justice Peel, has called for parties to stop making personal attacks on their ex-partners using s25 statements.
Mr Peel reminded parties within his introductory comments that “s25 statements must only contain evidence, and ‘on no account should contain argument or other rhetoric'”. He said the wife made “[an] over long statement [which] crossed the line and descended into a number of personal, and prejudicial matters, directed at H which, in my view, were irrelevant to the matters at hand”.
Though the wife complied with the 20-page limit for her s25 statement, the small font and spacing she used meant 27 pages were submitted. This meant her statement was 33% longer than that of the Husband. Mr Peel said this was “completely unacceptable, and W’s legal team should not have permitted it to happen”. He continued:
“The purpose of the restriction on statement length is partly to focus the parties’ minds on relevant evidence, and partly to ensure a level playing field. Why is it fair for one party to follow the rules, but the other party to ignore them? Why is it fair for the complying party to be left with the feeling that the non-complying party has been able to adduce more evidence to his/her apparent advantage?”
On how the court considers such submissions from the parties, Mr Peel said:
“Parties, and their legal advisers, may be under the impression that to describe the other party in pejorative terms, and seek to paint an unfavourable picture, will assist their case. It is high time that parties and their lawyers disabuse themselves of this erroneous notion. Judges will deal with relevant evidence, and will not base decisions on alleged moral turpitude or what Coleridge J once famously described disapprovingly (albeit in a slightly different context) as a “rummage through the attic” of the marriage in G v G [2002] EWHC (Fam) 1339.”
Commenting on the separate issue of financial analysis of expenditure, Mr Peel said:
“The working day before the hearing, H served on W a financial analysis of matrimonial expenditure through the parties’ joint account in 2018 and 2019. The itemised schedule consisted of thousands of entries. W’s legal team unsurprisingly objected to late receipt of this analysis. Commendably, in short order, they responded with a schedule of their own in respect of sole accounts so as to give a more complete picture.
I deprecate the practice, which appears to be prevalent, of lawyers producing at the eleventh hour spreadsheet analysis of expenditure during the marriage (and/or since separation) based on primary documents such as bank and credit card statements which have been in their possession for many months.
If an exercise such as this is to be relied upon, it must be provided well in advance of the final hearing (I suggest before the PTR or final directions hearing) so that the issues, and evidence, can be properly identified and case managed.”
