Haskell v Haskell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 3434 (Fam) |
| Date | 2019 |
| Year | 2019 |
| Court | Family Division |
Marriage - Financial provision - Interim order - Variation - Husband asserting inability to make ordered interim maintenance payments pending suit and applying to vary - Whether change of circumstances of serious nature demonstrated - Whether power to suspend sums due under interim order pending private financial dispute resolution hearing rather than varying order or dismissing application - Circumstances appropriate for court to exercise such discretion - Marriage - Financial provision - Enforcement - Wife issuing judgment summons for arrears of sums due under order for interim maintenance payments pending suit - Whether judgment summons to be heard together with husband’s application to vary order
Following the commencement of divorce proceedings the husband was ordered to pay maintenance pending suit and interim periodical payments for the benefit of the wife and the parties’ children. The husband, asserting that there had been a change in circumstance such that he could not presently afford the payments, ceased payment and after some delay issued an application to vary the order. Meanwhile, the wife issued a judgment summons alleging the accrual of significant arrears under the order.
On the applications—
Held, adjourning the judgment summons and suspending the maintenance order, (1) that variation applications were to be heard before, and not together with, the hearing of a judgment summons unless the court was satisfied that the variation application was no more than a strategic filibuster (post, para 6).
(2) That established authorities made clear that for the court to grant an application to vary an order for maintenance pending suit it was necessary to prove, by full and compelling evidentiary disclosure, that there had been a change of circumstances of a serious nature; that, here, there was not such a sufficiency of evidence for the purposes of varying the existing maintenance pending suit order so as to permanently discharge the liabilities thereunder; but that, in addition to the binary choice of whether or not to vary the order for maintenance pending suit as to quantum, the court could instead order a suspension of sums due pending a private financial dispute resolution hearing agreed between the parties; that where such relief was sought a suspension merely deferred the liability rather than eliminated it and therefore a lesser degree of change of circumstances, and a lesser sufficiency of proof, was required; that in such circumstances the court exercised its discretion where it was satisfied that there was a real risk that there had been a halt to the resources hitherto adjudged to be available to meet the order for maintenance pending suit; and that in the present case the court was so satisfied and, accordingly, on the condition inter alia that the husband discharged specified amounts of the arrears, the interim maintenance order would be suspended and the proceedings restored to the judge following the conclusion of the private financial dispute resolution hearing (post, paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13–15).
APPLICATIONS
On 4 March 2019 Lieven J ordered the husband, Mr Haskell, to pay to the wife, Mrs Haskell, maintenance pending suit and interim periodical payments pursuant to sections 22 and 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The arrears accrued by the husband’s non-payment were quantified by Roberts J on 6 June 2019. The husband, acting in person, attempted to make an application, giving grounds in support, for variation in June 2019 but failed to pay the court fee. His formal application for variation was thus dated 21 October 2019. Previously, on 27 September 2019, the wife had issued an application for a judgment summons in respect of the accrued arrears.
The judgment was delivered in private and is reported with leave of the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BW Legal Services Ltd v Trustpilot A/S
...the parties that the relevant principles are well established and are summarised in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2020] 4 WLR 24, Nicklin J at [11]–[17], as approved by the Court of Appeal in Millett v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19 There was also no dispute between the parties th......