A recent case has highlighted the duty that the parties to family proceedings owe to the court.
Family proceedings are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The rules have the ‘overriding objective’ of enabling the court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any child welfare issues involved. Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(b) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues;
(c) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(d) saving expense; and
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it exercises any power given to it by the rules, or interprets any rule. However, what is not well known by many parties involved in family proceedings is that they are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.
An example of this not happening occurred in the recent case Christoforou v Christoforou. The case concerned a wife’s financial remedy application, where the resources were in the region of £50 to £55 million. The application was heard by Mr Justice Moylan in the High Court. He found that the husband, in particular, had conducted the case in a manner which was contrary to the duty placed on parties to help the court to further the overriding objective. He said:
“This failure can be demonstrated by the husband’s contention that he should be awarded the additional sum of €17,622 to compensate him for the wife’s unequal division of the balance in an account. I appreciate that a number of small sums can add up to a significant amount. I also recognise that, if the court too readily ignores what might be tactical accretion or expenditure of small amounts, parties might be encouraged to engage in such behaviour. However, to descend to this level in this case having regard to the available resources is, frankly, absurdly disproportionate.”
The case has not yet been finalised, but it may well be that the husband will be penalised on costs for his failure to help the court to further the overriding objective.
You can read the full report of the case here.
Image: Royal Court of Justice, by Santi Villamarín, licensed under CC BY 2.0.