M v M

A court may refuse to hear a party who is in wilful and continuing contempt where the contempt impedes the course of justice and no other effective means secures compliance. The jurisdiction may apply to a respondent, including at an interim hearing, and any restriction must remain proportionate.

Under section 14 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, “immediate need” means current need, not necessarily urgent need. Once that need is established, the court may make such reasonable interim provision as the circumstances require. Temporary assistance from friends does not defeat immediate need.

The wife sought interim periodical payments and funding for legal fees following the breakdown of a long marriage. She had leave to pursue financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

The husband failed to provide the ordered financial disclosure, did not attend the hearing, and offered no explanation or undertaking to comply. The central issues were whether he should be heard despite his contempt, whether the court had jurisdiction to make interim orders, and whether the wife demonstrated immediate need.

1. Hadkinson jurisdiction. The wife’s application succeeded. The husband was in contempt through voluntary, deliberate, knowing and continuing breaches of disclosure orders. His failure to provide financial information directly impeded the court’s ability to determine interim maintenance and to enforce any order.
2. The fact that the contemnor was responding to the application did not prevent the jurisdiction from being exercised, and refusal to hear him did not infringe article 6. The hearing was interim, the husband could comply and later seek variation, and no effective alternative means of securing compliance had been offered. The court therefore declined to hear his counsel.
3. Interim maintenance. Section 14 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 requires leave, the appropriate jurisdictional connection, immediate need and reasonable provision. “Immediate” means current rather than necessarily urgent. The approach applicable to maintenance pending suit under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 also applies.
4. The wife was currently in need. Financial help from friends was temporary and voluntary and could not be relied upon to resist an otherwise appropriate order. In the absence of proper disclosure, the court was entitled to draw inferences against the husband where the evidence left gaps which he was able to explain.
5. The court ordered interim maintenance of £460,000 per annum, including £150,000 for rent, and legal-fee provision of £10,000 per month until the financial dispute resolution hearing. The legal-fee element was backdated to 20 July 2010.