Veluppillai v Veluppillai & Ors

In ancillary relief proceedings, repeated applications for the same relief are abusive where there has been no material change of circumstances. Once relief has been refused on the merits, the proper challenge is by appeal. A party seeking an adjournment of a final hearing on medical grounds must provide evidence addressing the condition, its effect on participation, prognosis and the independence of the opinion. The court may draw reasonable inferences from deliberate non-disclosure, including an inference of undisclosed assets, but must assess the risk of unfairness to the non-disclosing party. Exceptional litigation misconduct may justify indemnity costs, an extended civil restraint order and publication without anonymisation.

The first respondent wife applied for ancillary relief following a 20-year marriage. The husband had repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations, made numerous applications and appeals, and engaged in threatening and abusive conduct. Shortly before the final hearing he repeatedly applied for an adjournment on the basis of a medical certificate from Hungary. Earlier applications had been dismissed, with provision made for participation by telephone or video.

The court determined the adjournment issue, the treatment of non-disclosure and transactions affecting the asset assessment, the appropriate financial order, costs, civil restraint and publication. The central procedural issue was whether the renewed adjournment application could properly be entertained.

1. Adjournment. The husband’s medical certificate fell far short of the evidence required to show that a party could not attend and participate in a trial. The evidence should identify the medical attendant and recent consultations, particularise the condition and its effect on participation, provide a reasoned prognosis, and give confidence that the opinion followed proper examination. The court was not bound to accept even proper expert evidence. The earlier application had been dismissed on its merits, and there had been no material change of circumstances. The further application was therefore abusive and was summarily rejected. The proper route of challenge was appeal: Arif v Zar & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 986.
2. Financial assessment. The court inferred that the husband had at least £500,000 of undisclosed assets from his skill, the wife’s evidence, transfers to the children, the property purchase, the disposal of jewellery and persistent refusal to disclose. The estimate was conservative and did not create an appreciable risk of unfairness to the husband. The court declared the husband the sole beneficial owner of Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham, and adopted the wife’s proposal, producing a clean break.
3. Costs and restraints. The husband’s conduct justified an order under Family Procedure Rules 28.3(6) and (7) requiring him to pay the wife’s costs of £146,609. The sum was charged on Flat 18 under section 3(1) of the Charging Orders Act 1979, with an immediate absolute order. Numerous meritless applications and abusive emails justified an extended civil restraint order under FPR 4.8 and PD4A, lasting two years.
4. Publication. The husband’s extreme misconduct amounted to iniquity. The public interest in exposing it outweighed the wife’s privacy rights. The judgment was therefore published in full and without anonymisation, and the husband’s emails were referred to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.