Advice Centre

Speak to a member of our specialist international team of UK family lawyers today on 0330 107 0107.

Introduction

This case concerns a financial order dispute in the context of divorce proceedings. IMD Solicitors LLP represented the applicant wife, in a case involving an asset pot which included properties located abroad (including Poland) and the central issue was the division of equity in the family home in England.

The case demonstrated the challenges faced in achieving a resolution when one party behaves unreasonably. Despite these difficulties, the court awarded the client the majority of the equity in the matrimonial assets, exceeding her open position in her evidence prepared ahead of the final hearing.

Case Background

The dispute arose following the breakdown of the parties’ marriage, which it is fair to say was not amicable. The applicant wife sought financial provision to ensure stable housing for herself and her two children, who shared their time between the parties. Negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful due to the unreasonable conduct of the respondent husband, who refused to engage reasonably in settlement discussions, including at FDR where he flatly refused to negotiate.

The proceedings extended for nearly two years, as a result of the respondent’s continuous delaying tactics, including failing to comply with court orders and making pointless applications. This was all despite him being represented throughout. The most frustrating result of this was the increase in costs for our client who took (through IMD) responsibility for driving matters towards a fair resolution.

In the end, the matter proceeded to a final hearing. The court awarded the applicant wife the majority of the equity in the family home. This outcome enabled her to rehouse at a level comparable to the standard of living she and the children had experienced during the marriage. A costs order was also made in her favour, to largely offset her legal expenses.

Challenges Encountered

• Unreasonable Conduct
  The opposing party consistently declined to negotiate. This approach prolonged the case and placed additional pressure on the wife. Under current Family Court procedures, our view is that this conduct does not lead to significant penalties unless the matter goes to a final hearing and misconduct is found, which we say highlights a limitation in the system which places vulnerable parties at risk and under undue pressure.
• Delays in Resolution
  The case took almost two years to reach a conclusion, causing strain and expense for the client. Lengthy proceedings are a common issue in financial remedy cases at the moment, which we consider are often exacerbated by procedural inefficiencies.
• Cost Recovery
  Although the court awarded our client a portion of her legal costs, this fell short of covering her actual expenditure. The limited scope for recovering costs in Family Law cases can be a concern for parties engaged in lengthy disputes and again, in our view, places vulnerable parties at risk and under undue pressure.

Legal Strategy and Approach

As the respondent husband had employed similar tactics in the earlier proceedings relating to the children, we developed a strategy which focused on presenting the client’s case clearly, concisely and fairly. We made sure to demonstrate clearly her willingness to settle and to highlight the respondent’s misconduct. Key steps included:

• Reasonable Offers
  Offers were made at regular intervals during the proceedings. These were detailed, clear, and realistic. By presenting the court with evidence of the wife’s efforts to settle at the final hearing, her overall position (including in relation to costs) was strengthened.
• Open Offers
  Offers were also made as “open offers,” meaning they could be seen by the court prior throughout the proceedings. These were used strategically to encourage the opposing party to consider settlement and to support the wife’s case (particularly with a view to arguments in relation to costs at the end of the final hearing) when it was clear that negotiations were not progressing.
• Focus on needs
  The court considered the needs of the wife and her children, particularly regarding housing to be the determining factors in the sharing of the assets. By awarding her a significant share of the family home’s equity, the court ensured that her needs and those of the children were met. We were aware that this was the likely outcome a court would order at a final hearing and pitched offers and our client’s evidence with this in mind and from an early stage.
• Costs Orders
  We built a clear and concise case of the respondent’s misconduct, by keeping a clear record of the offers made and the orders he breached, which we concisely presented to the judge at the final hearing. The court’s making of a costs order recognised the unreasonable conduct of the opposing party. While it did not cover the full extent of the wife’s legal costs, it provided some redress.

Key Observations

• The importance of presenting reasonable offers during financial remedy proceedings is evident. These offers demonstrate a willingness to engage constructively and provide the court with a basis for assessing the conduct of both parties at a final hearing.
• Unreasonable behaviour by one party can lead to significant delays and costs for the other party. The current system, as we see it, allows for limited sanctions in such circumstances and before a final hearing, which may warrant further examination.
• While costs orders provide some compensation, they rarely cover the full extent of legal expenses, which can seem unjust.

Conclusion

The case highlighted the difficulties faced in financial order disputes when one party refuses to engage reasonably. Through careful planning and clear communication, IMD Solicitors LLP achieved a positive outcome for the client, securing the majority of the family home’s equity and some cost recovery. The client was delighted with the result. The case highlights the need for a fair and balanced approach in financial remedy cases and the critical role of experienced legal representation in achieving such outcomes.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.

To find out more about our services, visit Financial issues and settlements section of our website.

Call us now to discuss your case 0330 107 0107 or email us at info@imd.co.uk.