Mann v Mann

Where a spouse’s apparent financial position is inconsistent with the evidence of lifestyle, cash receipts and available facilities, the court may assess the party’s practical resources rather than rely on a purely numerical presentation. Where those resources show an ability to prevent serious hardship and threatened homelessness, the court may make an emergency interim periodical payments order. The order may be framed to preserve the recipient’s rights under an earlier financial order and may include arrears calculated by crediting sums already paid.

This was a restored enforcement application arising from earlier financial orders and an unsuccessful attempt at mediation. The husband had not provided complete disclosure and maintained that he lacked resources to meet the wife’s needs. The wife relied on evidence of his lifestyle, cash received through associated entities, loans and other financial arrangements. Rent arrears had accumulated and the wife faced the risk of possession proceedings and homelessness. The central issue was whether the husband had sufficient practical resources to make payments that would prevent that hardship.

1. The court found that the husband’s tabular presentation of his finances did not reflect reality. His lifestyle, residence without charge, expenditure, credit-card records, cash receipts and access to loans demonstrated substantial practical resources, despite his asserted insolvency.
2. The husband had previously paid the wife’s rent and £4,000 per month. The wife’s rent arrears had reached £42,000 and possession proceedings were threatened. The court was satisfied that the husband could continue meeting the wife’s needs in broadly the manner previously provided.
3. Following the end of the mediation arrangement, the earlier order had revived. That order had discharged the spousal maintenance obligation and replaced it with a lump sum, which remained substantially unpaid. The absence of a formal dismissal meant that the wife’s periodical payments claim remained capable of revival.
4. The court held that it had jurisdiction to make an interim periodical payments order. The order was expressly made without prejudice to the wife’s rights under the order of Charles J dated 11 May 2005.
5. With effect from 1 November, the husband was ordered to pay interim periodical payments of £10,000 per month, payable monthly in advance, with credit for the £4,000 monthly payments already made between November and May. Arrears of £42,000 were ordered to be paid within seven days. Payments were to continue from 1 June, subject to review.
6. The order was characterised as an emergency measure intended to prevent the wife’s property from being possessed and to avoid homelessness. The court warned that the full range of enforcement measures was available, including proceedings under the Debtors Act 1869.

This was a first-instance restored enforcement application following an earlier judgment given on 5 March 2014. No appellate decision is stated in this judgment.