Joy v Joy

In exceptional financial-remedy cases, a court may adjourn a spouse’s capital claim where justice requires it and there is a realistic prospect that funds will become available in the future. The clean-break objective does not require dismissal where the parties remain subject to periodical payments and an immediate capital determination would produce an unjust result. Serious misconduct by the payer, deliberate concealment of resources and the vulnerability of the receiving spouse may justify preserving the claim. The claim may remain at large rather than being confined to later capitalisation of maintenance. Any adjournment should have a workable mechanism for review, including a restoration deadline and financial disclosure.

The wife’s capital claims had been adjourned in earlier financial-remedy proceedings after the court found that the husband had dishonestly concealed the reality of his continuing connection with substantial trust resources. His periodical payments order remained in force, but substantial arrears had accrued. The husband continued to live comfortably with assistance from supporters, while the wife was in severe financial difficulty.

After the death of the judge who had heard the later restoration hearing, the issue was re-argued before Mr Justice Cohen. The central questions were whether the wife’s capital claims should be dismissed or further adjourned, whether the clean-break principle or human-rights considerations required dismissal, and what information should be provided to enable a future application.

1. Adjournment of capital claims. The court had a discretionary power to adjourn a lump-sum claim. Dismissal was a matter of last resort. The circumstances were exceptional: the husband had been found to have acted dishonestly and to have contrived his apparent exclusion from trust resources; the court remained satisfied that he was likely to obtain access to funds in the future; and the wife was destitute or close to it.
2. The authorities relied on by the husband principally concerned expected inheritances, bonuses or gratuities. They did not govern a case involving serious misconduct and a deliberately obstructed financial remedy. MT v MT [1992] 1 FLR 362 and Quan v Bray and Ors [2019] 1 FLR 1114 demonstrated that an adjournment could be justified where a future capital settlement was foreseeable.
3. Clean break and maintenance. The statutory clean-break objective did not require dismissal. The husband did not seek to discharge the continuing periodical payments order, so a complete clean break was not presently achievable. The wife’s capital claim should remain at large and should not be restricted to capitalisation of a potentially modest maintenance award, applying the concern identified in Pearce v Pearce [2003] 2 FLR 1144.
4. The wife’s capital claims were therefore adjourned, but would be dismissed unless an application to restore them was made by 31 July 2022. The husband was ordered to provide extensive annual financial information through April 2022. The wife’s request to use his statement in French criminal proceedings was refused because it might expose him to self-incrimination.

First-instance decision. The judgment explains that the financial-remedy proceedings had previously been heard by Sir Peter Singer and that the matter was re-argued before Mr Justice Cohen after Sir Peter’s death.