Law Articles

How does the court deal with a situation where one party deliberately disregards court orders in financial remedy cases 10/10/2024

Adverse inferences can have significant implications in family court proceedings, particularly in cases involving financial disputes. For example, the court may draw adverse inferences when a party fails to provide full and frank disclosure of their financial situation or refuses to comply with court orders for things like drug/alcohol testing. The purpose of adverse inferences is to allow the court to make assumptions about hidden assets or negative behaviours when a party is being uncooperative or obstructive. Judges have discretion in deciding whether to draw adverse inferences and how much weight to give them. Inferences must be properly drawn and reasonable, based on the evidence. If the court concludes funds have been hidden, it may attempt to quantify those assets, even in broad terms, based on available evidence and lifestyle factors. Adverse inferences about hidden assets can lead to a higher financial award for the other party to ensure fairness.

In a recent case which involved a short marriage of 5.5 years between a 38-year-old husband and a 37-year-old wife, the court had to deal with this very issue. The parties married in June 2016 and separated in December 2021. The couple had three children, aged 7, 6, and 2, who spent equal time with both parents following a child arrangements order made in October 2013. The court faced significant procedural hurdles at the final hearing such as: the husband representing himself due to lack of funds, the wife not attending the hearing, the wife having breached multiple orders for disclosure, there being no prepared court bundle of documents, etc. Despite these challenges, the court decided to proceed with the hearing, citing the overriding objective and the impracticality of scheduling yet another hearing given the wife's history of non-compliance. The case had a troubled history, with six previous hearings proving ineffective due to the wife's non-attendance or failure to disclose information.

The court emphasised the court's quasi-inquisitorial role in family proceedings. He noted that while the family court has limited powers, its aim is to achieve a fair outcome rather than strictly adhering to adversarial pleadings. The court made several key determinations. The court found evidence of litigation misconduct on the wife's part, an adverse inference was drawn regarding the wife's earning capacity, based on her persistent non-compliance with court orders and the court speculated that the wife's non-disclosure was likely motivated by a perceived advantage in keeping the court uninformed about her current financial situation.

After careful consideration of the Section 25 factors of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court made the following order:

• Asset Division: 67% to the husband and 33% to the wife. The departure from equality was justified by the husband's property being a pre-marital asset not subject to equal sharing and the wife's litigation misconduct.                                                                                                                            
• Spousal Periodical Payments: Ordered for four years at £1,200 per month, based on the husband's financial figures. After four years, the payments would become nominal and expire when the youngest child turned 18.                                                                                                                   
• Costs: No separate costs order was made, as the wife's litigation misconduct was factored into the overall asset redistribution.

This judgment demonstrates the family court's approach to cases involving non-compliance and deliberate flouting of court orders. While striving for fairness, the court may draw adverse inferences and adjust financial orders to account for a party's misconduct, ensuring that such behaviour does not unduly disadvantage the compliant party or impede the court's ability to reach a just decision.

For further information and advice on this issue, and other family law issues, please contact us for a free initial consultation on 01992 306 616 or 0207 956 2740 or email us.