Maughan v Wilmot

A freezing order requires the restrained value to remain genuinely unencumbered and practically accessible. Assets that cannot readily be realised without the respondent’s cooperation may not satisfy the order merely because they are formally free of charges. The court may order the draw-down or transfer of pension funds where necessary, although no such order was sought in this case. A party subject to a civil restraint order must obtain permission before pursuing further applications or seeking permission to appeal. Where costs are assessed summarily on the indemnity basis, genuine doubts about claimed sums are resolved in favour of the receiving party.

The proceedings concerned the enforcement of long-standing freezing and receivership orders in financial remedy litigation. The court had previously made costs orders and froze £100,000 after being assured that substantial pension funds were available. Subsequent investigation showed that most of the funds held with Aegon/Hargreaves Lansdown were inaccessible without the husband’s cooperation, while the Curtis Banks funds had largely been withdrawn.

The court reconsidered its earlier disposition, determined whether the husband had breached the freezing orders, revised the costs and freezing arrangements, and addressed attempts to raise further claims and challenge the costs shortly before judgment.

1. Freezing order. The husband’s withdrawals from Curtis Banks breached the original freezing order because he had not demonstrated that the required unencumbered sum remained available. The funds left at Aegon/Hargreaves Lansdown were inaccessible in practice and therefore did not qualify as unencumbered assets for this purpose. Withdrawals made after the order of 23 March 2016 also breached that order.
2. Pension funds. The court rejected the submission that it lacked power to require pension funds to be drawn down or transferred to a flexible-access product. Such an order could be made, as recognised in Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Company (Cayman) Limited [2011] UKPC 17, Blight v Brewster [2012] 1 WLR 2841 and Goyal v Goyal [2016] EWFC 50. No such order was sought, however, and enforcement steps against the Aegon funds would be taken if cooperation was withheld.
3. Further applications. Because the husband was subject to a civil restraint order, the court refused to hear his claims for positive relief without the permission required by FPR PD 4B paras 4.2 and 4.4–4.6.
4. Costs and disposition. The wife’s and receiver’s post-October costs were reasonably incurred and payable by the husband. The court ordered payment of £137,746, set aside £25,620 for future receiver costs, and froze £200,000 as further headroom. The challenge to the costs was rejected. Given the husband’s misconduct, assessment was on the indemnity basis; on summary assessment, any genuine doubt would be resolved in favour of the payee.

The judgment was a first-instance decision revising the court’s earlier costs and freezing-order disposition in the same proceedings. No appeal history is stated.