MT v OT (No.2)

When finalising a family order, the court should minimise opportunities for further costly litigation, consistently with justice and fairness. Where existing accommodation is to be sold, the court may require a party to identify and purchase suitable replacement accommodation before the sale, subject to notice and a reasonable opportunity for objection. Financial provision intended to meet children’s needs should ordinarily be managed by the recipient, without disproportionate micro-scrutiny by the paying parent. Practical order-making must remain fair while avoiding unnecessary control and dispute.

The judgment concerned the finalisation of an order following the judge’s substantive judgment delivered on 20 April 2018. The parties remained apart on several provisions, including the mechanics of rehousing the mother and children, the use of funds set aside for professional expenses, and the extent of financial documentation to be supplied to the father.

The court was required to determine how those provisions should be framed consistently with justice, fairness and the need to reduce opportunities for further litigation.

1. Order finalisation. The court amended the draft order to reduce opportunities for further expensive and continuing litigation, while maintaining the requirements of justice and fairness.
2. Rehousing. The mother was entitled to select and purchase a new property without being required to wait until the father had sold the existing home. She was required to give at least 21 days’ notice, identify the proposed property and provide the estate agent’s particulars. During that period the father could have his agents and surveyors inspect the property and object to its suitability. If he did not object within the period, he was required to provide the housing fund. The court rejected the contention that the earlier judgment had confined the purchase price to the proceeds of sale of the existing property. That earlier passage addressed general housing mechanics, not the production of funds.
3. Professional expenses. The requirement for a joint letter of instruction before a professional was engaged was removed. Given the limited fund of £5,000 per year and the father’s limited involvement in the children’s lives, the mother could instruct the professional, provided that she gave advance information about significant involvement and supplied referrals and reports.
4. Financial documentation. The requirement for quarterly production of numerous household bills was removed. The child provision, ordered at a maximum total of £7,500 per month inclusive of household and carer-related expenses, was to be managed by the mother. The proposed documentation requirement amounted to unjustified micro-scrutiny and created further scope for dispute.
5. The judgment was to be read with the substantive judgment delivered approximately five weeks earlier.