Maughan v Wilmot

A court may appoint a receiver as an enforcement measure where a judgment debtor has shown extreme and continuing defiance of maintenance or other orders. An extended civil restraint order requires persistent applications which are totally without merit; once that threshold is met, the court must decide whether the circumstances justify exercising its discretion. In family proceedings, the general rule on costs does not prevent an award where the circumstances warrant it. Indemnity costs may be ordered where conduct or circumstances take the case out of the norm, particularly through unreasonable and baseless allegations pursued over time.

The applicant made applications for the appointment of a receiver, extension of a freezing injunction and an extended civil restraint order. The respondent applied to strike out the freezing order and to stay existing orders, including child-maintenance orders, and sought an adjournment.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. The court considered whether the adjournment request complied with the Family Procedure Rules, whether the respondent had established any basis to challenge the existing orders, whether enforcement and restraint measures were justified, and whether the applicant should receive indemnity costs and a payment on account.

1. Adjournment and respondent’s application. The respondent had ample notice of the hearing. A proper adjournment application under Part 18 required at least seven days’ notice and supporting evidence or a statement of truth. His letter did not satisfy those requirements, so the adjournment was refused and the hearing proceeded.
2. Challenge to existing orders. An order may reflect rulings made during proceedings which were not repeated in the judgment. The order made by Ryder J was therefore valid. Allegations about the use of maintenance payments did not establish a basis to set aside existing orders, particularly without evidence. Repeated allegations of corruption and fraud, previously rejected by the court, were res judicata and their repetition was an abuse of process. The respondent’s application was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
3. Receiver and freezing injunction. Receivership is an enforcement remedy generally used as a last resort. The respondent’s extreme defiance of principally child-maintenance orders, substantial arrears and anticipated resistance to enforcement justified appointing a receiver under Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37. The freezing injunction was extended for 12 months because it was necessary to preserve assets during the receivership.
4. Extended civil restraint order. Under Rule 4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the threshold was met because eight applications over approximately two years and three months had been found expressly to be totally without merit. The remaining question was discretionary. The respondent’s persistent and vexatious conduct made this an egregious case warranting an extended order requiring permission before further applications concerning the proceedings.
5. Costs. The applicant prevailed on her applications and successfully resisted the respondent’s meritless application. The circumstances fell outside the norm and involved unreasonable pursuit of serious, baseless allegations. Indemnity costs were therefore ordered, together with £45,000 on account payable within 14 days.