Meerna Ali Ghuloom Faraj v Sohail Sultan Ahmad & Anor

When directing a retrial in financial-remedy proceedings, the court must give effect to the overriding objective. The first case-management hearing should be listed at the earliest available date and should not be delayed solely for counsel’s convenience.

A full retrial of substantive issues does not, without more, reopen separate interlocutory orders or an earlier unsuccessful appeal from such an order. A party cannot use a consequential order as an alternative route of appeal. Where the justice of appeal-costs orders depends on facts that must be determined afresh, those costs may properly be reserved to the retrial judge.

Financial-remedy proceedings between the wife and husband were determined by the Family Court in Ahmad v Faraj [2023] EWFC 209, followed by an order dated 15 December 2023. The husband’s company, IIB Group Holdings WLL, was also involved in the ensuing appeals.

In the substantive appeals, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of the wife, husband and Bank, set aside all factual findings, and ordered a full retrial: [2026] EWCA Civ 962. This consequential judgment determined the form of the appellate order. It addressed the listing of the retrial, the costs of the three appeals, the husband’s attempt to revisit a legal-services payment order and related appeal orders, and the continued effect of specified provisions of the 2023 order.

1. Consequential order. Fraser LJ, with whom Baker and King LJJ agreed, confirmed that the substantive appeals had resulted in a full retrial because none of the first-instance factual findings could stand. The consequential order was to preserve the limited orders that remained appropriate while ensuring that the retrial proceeded promptly.

2. Listing. Applying the overriding objective in the Family Procedure Rules, the court directed that the first hearing before the retrial judge be listed on the first available date after 26 October 2026. It was not to be fixed around counsel’s convenience. Delay caused by diary difficulties would increase both delay and cost.

3. Legal-services payment order. The husband’s proposed undertaking not to seek recovery of sums paid under the legal-services payment order was unnecessary. The proposed setting aside of that order, its appeal order and the unless order was rejected. No application to set them aside had been made, and the husband could not use the consequential order to mount an alternative appeal from the earlier unsuccessful appeal. The earlier orders rested on matters wider than the disputed accounts, including findings that the non-payment had been deliberate and wilful and that the husband had means to pay.

4. Costs and surviving orders. The costs of all three substantive appeals were reserved to the retrial judge. Whether the family asset protection arrangement was a sham or valid could materially affect what costs order would be just. Orders for periodical payments, school fees, and the net historic costs award in paragraph 26 of the 2023 order remained live and enforceable because there was no sound basis to disturb them.

The parties were to engage in ADR before the expedited directions hearing. Any further application for a legal-services payment order was to be made promptly and could be determined by the retrial judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In the substantive appeals, the court allowed the appeals of the wife, husband and Bank, ordered a full retrial, and held that none of the first-instance factual findings could stand: [2026] EWCA Civ 962 . This judgment settled the consequential directions and costs issues.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The husband’s appeal concerning the legal-services payment order had previously been dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 468 .

• Family Court: Sir Jonathan Cohen determined the financial-remedy proceedings in Ahmad v Faraj [2023] EWFC 209, followed by the order of 15 December 2023. The substantive appellate decision required a full retrial.