Alexander Valeryavich Timokhin v Anna Annatolyevna Timokhina

A court may stay properly constituted family proceedings under its common-law case-management jurisdiction where doing so is necessary to secure a fair and efficient determination. The existence of related proceedings abroad does not automatically convert the application into a substantive forum non conveniens dispute. The court must take a broad, cautious and fact-sensitive view of the competing jurisdictions, while applying the overriding objective. A temporary stay may be procedural where it postpones the timetable but leaves the claim alive and the English court’s jurisdiction undetermined. Relevant considerations include overlap between the proceedings, the effect of the foreign outcome on the parties’ resources, the avoidance of inconsistent or duplicated work, costs, delay and any prejudice to children. An appellate court should not interfere with such a discretionary case-management decision absent an error of law, procedural irregularity or a decision outside the ambit of discretion.

The appellant father brought proceedings under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 for financial provision for two children, including lump sums, periodical payments and transfer of property. The respondent mother sought strike-out or summary dismissal and, alternatively, a stay because related financial litigation following the parties’ Russian divorce remained unresolved in Russia.

The Recorder rejected the strike-out and summary-dismissal applications but stayed the English proceedings until the Russian litigation, including appeals, concluded. She ordered the father to pay 80% of the mother’s costs. The father sought permission to appeal the stay and costs orders. The central issues were whether the stay was a substantive forum non conveniens decision requiring exceptional circumstances, or a procedural case-management decision governed by the court’s wider powers and the overriding objective, and whether the costs order was appealable.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal against both the stay and costs orders had no reasonable prospect of success and disclosed no other compelling reason for an appeal.
2. The High Court and Family Procedure Rules retain a broad power to stay proceedings. The common-law power is preserved by s 49(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and reflected in FPR 2010 r 4.1(3)(g). Its exercise depends on the interests of justice and must be informed by the overriding objective in FPR 2010 r 1.1.
3. Forum non conveniens principles require caution and ordinarily rare and compelling circumstances where a claimant’s right to sue in England is being displaced. That was not the effect of the order under appeal. The father’s Schedule 1 claim remained live and had been brought as of right. The order merely suspended its procedural progress until the Russian financial litigation produced a final determination.
4. The Russian proceedings materially overlapped with the English claims. Their outcome could affect the Hampstead property, the parties’ adjusted resources and the treatment of substantial sums said to represent family expenditure and maintenance. The English court could not fairly assess the children’s financial provision in isolation or on assumptions about the parties’ final resources.
5. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that waiting could narrow disclosure, reduce duplication and costs, and avoid an unfair or potentially incomplete determination. The children’s needs were being met from the father’s substantial resources, so the delay caused no financial prejudice sufficient to outweigh those considerations. The decision was procedural and fell within the Recorder’s discretion.
6. The costs order also stood. The Recorder had a wide discretion under CPR r 44.2(4) and (5), properly reflected the mother’s failure on her primary applications by applying a 20% discount, and rejected indemnity costs. The appeal costs were to be dealt with by written submissions if required.

• High Court (Family Division): Permission to appeal was refused against the Recorder’s order of 30 September 2022 staying the Schedule 1 proceedings and awarding the respondent 80% of her costs.
• Central Family Court: Recorder Nice rejected the respondent’s strike-out and summary-dismissal applications but stayed the proceedings until conclusion of the Russian litigation, and ordered the appellant to pay £13,374.72 in costs.