M v M

A court may refuse to hear a party who is in wilful 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, provided the response is proportionate and compatible with article 6.

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 must make such reasonable order as the circumstances require. Temporary assistance from friends does not prevent a finding of need. Where a party withholds financial disclosure, the court may draw reasonable, adverse inferences, including when assessing interim maintenance and legal-fees provision.

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

The husband repeatedly failed to comply with orders requiring financial disclosure. He did not attend the hearing, offered no adequate explanation, and instructed counsel to make submissions on jurisdiction and principle. The wife applied under the Hadkinson jurisdiction to prevent him being heard.

The principal issues were whether the husband’s contempt justified that course, whether the wife was in “immediate need” under section 14, how the absence of disclosure affected assessment of the appropriate sum, and whether interim maintenance could include legal fees.

1. Hadkinson application. The wife’s application succeeded. The husband was in contempt because his failures were voluntary, deliberate, knowing and continuing. His refusal to provide financial information directly impeded the court’s ability to determine the interim-maintenance application and to enforce any order. There was no other effective means of securing compliance. The fact that he was the respondent, rather than the applicant, did not prevent the court from declining to hear him and did not infringe article 6.
2. The court considered the questions identified in Mubarak v Mubarik [2004] 2 FLR 932, applying the guidance on wilful contempt in Laing v Laing [2007] 2 FLR 199. The order sought was draconian, but the husband had offered neither an adjournment nor any assurance of prompt compliance. Debarring him from participation was therefore proportionate.
3. Jurisdiction and immediate need. Section 14 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 requires leave, the statutory jurisdictional connection, and current need for financial assistance. “Immediate” means current rather than necessarily urgent. Once immediate need is shown, the court may make such order as is reasonable. The approach applicable to maintenance pending suit under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 also applies. Section 17 provides a further route to interim periodical payments.
4. The wife’s temporary support from a friend did not defeat her claim. It was voluntary and could not reasonably be treated as a permanent substitute for the husband’s obligation. The husband’s failure to disclose his resources justified reasonable inferences against him. The court ordered interim maintenance of £460,000 per annum, including £150,000 for rent, and directed that the rent element could not be stopped unilaterally.
5. Legal fees. Applying the principles in A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit for Legal Fees) [2001] 1 WLR 605 and Currey v Currey (No 2) [2007] 1 FLR 946, the court found that the wife could not reasonably fund representation from available resources or alternative borrowing. An allowance of £10,000 per month was ordered until the FDR-type hearing, backdated to 20 July 2010.