AF v GF

A court may reconsider a judgment after handing it down where fairness and a material change of circumstances justify doing so, although the discretion is narrow and such reconsideration is discouraged. An order for continuing periodical payments must be justified by needs and fairness. A nominal order should not be used merely as insurance against an uncertain future. In deciding whether to revisit a clean break, the court may consider earning capacity, available capital, pension provision, the parties’ ages, time since separation, any settlement payment and the value of finality. Security for financial orders requires a proper evidential basis, including evidence of a risk of dissipation where that is relied upon.

The judgment was an addendum to a financial remedy judgment following a final hearing in May and June 2024. After the evidence had closed, the respondent lost her employment under a settlement agreement and disclosed confidential information about the proceedings to a third party. The applicant sought permission to adduce further evidence and withdrew a proposed undertaking concerning the respondent’s employment. The respondent sought reconsideration of the clean break, a nominal periodical payments order for three years, and disclosure concerning the termination of her employment. The issues were whether the employment loss was caused by the applicant, whether the changed circumstances justified revisiting the order, and whether security or consequential payment directions were required.

1. Reconsideration after judgment. The court had jurisdiction to change its mind after handing down the judgment if it was fair to do so and there had been a material change in circumstances. The discretion was narrow, and reconsideration was discouraged. The present circumstances were analogous to, but not identical with, H v T (Judicial Change of Mind) [2018] EWHC 3692 (Fam).
2. Employment loss. The evidence, including the board minutes and the evidence of Mr Q, showed that the applicant had recused himself from discussions about the respondent’s employment and had not orchestrated her departure. The respondent therefore failed on that limb of her application.
3. Clean break and nominal maintenance. There was a strong statutory steer towards a clean break. Continuing periodical payments had to be justified by needs and fairness. A nominal order was not to be used as an insurance policy against the possibility of future unemployment, consistently with A v M [2021] EWFC 89. The respondent had substantial earning capacity, liquid capital, pension provision and a settlement payment equivalent to 13 months’ income. Considering those matters, the parties’ ages, the period since separation, the absence of responsibility on the applicant’s part for the employment loss and the benefit of finality, neither needs nor fairness required reconsideration. The clean break remained in force.
4. Other orders. The previous personal service company debt was to be paid from the final lump-sum tranche. Interest on the lump sum was to be paid annually. Security was refused. There was no evidential basis for a risk of dissipation, no history of non-compliance, and the applicant was FCA regulated.