Abigail Laura Williams v Andrew John Williams

A Hadkinson order has no proper place in financial remedy proceedings before a final order. The court must investigate the parties’ financial circumstances and apply the checklist in section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Preventing a party from participating may make that statutory task impossible. A legal services payment order may include outstanding costs, future domestic litigation, and necessary overseas enforcement costs where the applicant cannot fund the proceedings, alternative funding has been refused, and the respondent has the means to pay. Payment by instalments may be refused exceptionally where non-payment would require repeated enforcement.

The applicant sought an order preventing the respondent from taking part in the financial remedy proceedings unless he complied with existing orders. She also sought a legal services payment order covering outstanding costs, future proceedings in England, overseas enforcement work, and expert disbursements.

The respondent had not engaged with the proceedings or complied with disclosure orders. The issues were whether a Hadkinson order was appropriate before a final financial remedy order and, if not, whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for litigation funding and the sums claimed were reasonable.

1. Hadkinson application. The application was dismissed. A Hadkinson order has no place in financial remedy proceedings before a final order has been made. The court must investigate the respondent’s financial circumstances and make orders by reference to the checklist in section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It is impossible to perform that function if the respondent is prohibited from participating. The judge followed the approach previously stated in Young v Young [2013] EWHC 3637.
2. The judge recognised that different considerations may arise after a final order where a defaulting party brings costly applications despite failing to comply with the order. That observation was not necessary to determine the present application.
3. Legal services payment order. The applicant had demonstrated two refusals of litigation funding. Her solicitors would not act under a Sears Tooth agreement and would otherwise cease acting. The respondent had sufficient means, including identifiable funds in UK bank accounts, notwithstanding his non-disclosure.
4. Payment by instalments was inappropriate exceptionally because the respondent’s persistent refusal to pay would require repeated enforcement proceedings. The court awarded £190,420 for outstanding costs, £185,423 for continuing domestic proceedings to the FDR, and £175,000 for overseas enforcement in Monaco and in relation to ABB. The proposed Swiss litigation concerning Julius Baer was excluded as disproportionate at that stage.
5. The court also allowed £102,900 inclusive of VAT for necessary commercial property and business valuation reports. The respondent could have disputed those sums but had chosen not to engage.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.