Mann v Mann

In enforcement proceedings, the court may examine the reality of a debtor’s resources rather than rely solely on numerical schedules or asserted insolvency. Where a substantial lump sum remains unpaid, an order described as interim periodical payments may be re-characterised, with the parties’ agreement, as a court-directed scheduled part-payment of that lump sum. Enforcement under the Debtors Act 1869 requires an inquiry into wilful default and the debtor’s actual means. The court may also require a defaulting party who pays legal advisers to make a corresponding payment towards the judgment debt.

Shelley Mann sought enforcement against David Mann of financial obligations arising from earlier matrimonial proceedings. Earlier orders had replaced spousal maintenance with a lump sum, a substantial part of which remained unpaid. The court had made an emergency order for monthly payments, later re-characterised as scheduled part-payments of the outstanding lump sum, and had made a pound-for-pound order concerning payments to solicitors.

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal and stayed enforcement. The restored application concerned the amount outstanding, the consequences of continued default, the proposed examination under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, and the future determination of principal, interest and any remission.

1. Nature of the payment order. The court treated the earlier order as a court-directed scheduled part-payment of the outstanding lump sum. The parties’ exchange on 23 May had altered its character, because periodical payments could not ordinarily be credited against a lump sum, whereas the respondent had sought that credit. The court therefore left the appellate challenge to the original jurisdiction to make an order under section 23(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 unnecessary to decide.
2. Authority on enforcement jurisdiction. The court rejected the submission that the relevant reasoning in Karoonian v CMEC [2012] 3 FCR 491 was obiter. It held that paragraphs 56 to 58 contained the core ratio and stated that its earlier decision in Bhura v Bhura [2012] EWHC 3633 (Fam) had followed that reasoning.
3. Judgment summons and stay. The Court of Appeal’s stay was construed as preventing execution of any prison sentence, rather than staying the judgment-summons proceedings altogether. The High Court could therefore hear the summons and determine guilt and sentence, but could not execute a prison warrant before the permission application was determined.
4. Wilful default and means. The next hearing had to determine the precise principal and interest outstanding and whether the husband was in wilful default. The court noted that alleged hidden assets were not necessarily established and that his medical condition and explanations required proper examination. A prison sentence could follow only after the statutory inquiry.
5. Legal expenses and enforcement. Applying Mubarak v Mubarik [2007] 1 FLR 722, the court maintained the pound-for-pound approach: payments to solicitors required a corresponding payment towards the wife’s debt. The matter was listed for a two-day hearing to determine the debt and enforcement issues.

The judgment records that the Court of Appeal had granted permission to appeal against the payment and pound-for-pound orders and had stayed enforcement. The appeals had not yet been determined in this judgment.