PS v RS

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Moylan
Judgment Date01 April 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 4844 (Fam)
Docket NumberCase No. FD12F00950
CourtFamily Division
Date01 April 2014

[2014] EWHC 4844 (Fam)

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT

The Courthouse

1 Oxford Road

Leeds

LS1 3BG

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Moylan

Case No. FD12F00950

Between:
PS
Applicant
and
RS
Respondent

The Applicant appeared in Person, assisted by a McKenzie Friend

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hendron

Mr Justice Moylan
1

The parties to these proceedings are former spouses, but I propose to describe them in this judgment as the husband and the wife.

2

The wife applies for financial remedy orders under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"). The parties have very largely acted in person during the course of the proceedings. The husband has been represented at this hearing by Mr Hendron, but the wife has continued to act in person, assisted at this hearing by a McKenzie Friend.

3

In my view these proceedings have clearly demonstrated the difficulties which can be created for parties and for the court when the parties are acting in person. The court is not in a position to conduct the litigation for the parties and has to retain sufficient independence from the process, both to remain an impartial tribunal and to be seen as an impartial tribunal. Given also the volume of other cases, the court is not able to take on the role of inquisitor, certainly not to the extent necessary to replicate the forensic scrutiny which legal representatives would bring to bear during the course of proceedings.

4

I refer to this at the outset of this judgment because, in my view, the evidence in this case is not that which would have been available if the parties had been represented, both in terms of their own cases and in terms of the evidence which would have been at least sought from the other party. This undoubtedly makes the attainment of justice more difficult.

History

5

The husband and the wife are both Egyptian nationals by birth. They married in Egypt in 1996. The husband was born in 1962 and is now aged 51. He came to live in England in or about 1989, having qualified as a doctor. He has worked since then as a general practitioner (although his membership of the NHS pension scheme appears to date to 1992). He is also now a British national. The wife was born in 1976 and is now aged 38. When the parties married the wife was at university in Egypt. She completed her studies and came to live in England in 1997. The wife has also become a British national. There are two children of the family now aged 15 and 12. The elder is due to move to sixth form later this year or possibly the next academic year and the parties expect both children, in due course, to attend university in England.

6

Since 1997 the parties have lived in England. They initially lived in rented accommodation. The husband says that there was a proposed move to Egypt in 2008 but even if there was such a move, which is disputed by the wife, it did not last for more than a few months.

7

During the course of the marriage the husband built up a very successful practice as a GP which included providing medical services to the local police force.

8

The parties lived in a number of homes. In 2010 they were living in a substantial property which was sold for £650,000. The wife says that this property, which was in joint names, was sold without her knowledge. It has not been necessary for me to determine this issue but there is no obvious reason why this property had to be sold and its value provides an indication of the family's standard of living.

9

The husband appears to date the difficulties in the marriage to 2008. Divorce proceedings were commenced in 2010. The wife issued proceedings in England and the husband took proceedings in Egypt. The English proceedings were dismissed in late 2010 and the Egyptian process also came to an end because the parties reconciled.

10

In her oral evidence, the wife said that, after they were reconciled, the husband started to get rid of his wealth. He told her they would make a fresh start at their next home which would also be in her name. The husband in fact purchased this property in his sole name.

11

In or about February 2011 the husband again began the divorce process in Egypt. In July 2011 the wife also again commenced divorce proceedings in England. On 17 th May 2012, with both parties then being represented by counsel, I declared that the marriage had been validly determined in Egypt on 3 rd March 2011. As a consequence, the wife's petition was dismissed and it necessarily followed that her financial application was also dismissed. The husband later sought to contend, as described below, that this dismissal of the wife's financial application in some way debarred her from advancing her current claims.

12

The parties separated in late 2011, with the wife and the children remaining in the family home. The wife and the children are still living in this property.

13

In 2013 the husband purchased a home for himself in the same part of England as the former matrimonial home. The husband continues to work as a GP.

14

The wife did not work in paid employment during the marriage until about four years ago when she started working part-time as an administrator, which she still does.

15

I do not have a clear account of what payments the husband has been making to the wife for her or the children's benefit since 2011. The wife says that they have been limited; the husband says they have been extensive. It is clear however that the husband has paid the mortgage on the former matrimonial home, currently £1,345 per month; home insurance and other life insurance premiums, currently totalling £78 per month; and TV licence of £12.50 per month. In addition, following the wife's application to the Child Support Agency in 2012, the husband began making payments for the children either in 2012 or possibly early 2013 of approximately £440 per month. The CSA payment has reduced to £220 per month because one of the children spent a short period living with the husband. It has not yet been increased, although that child is now again living with the mother.

16

When paying at the full CSA rate, the husband has been making payments totalling £22,500 per year. He has in addition been making other payments for the children, such as for the school bus, pocket money, mobile phone, and other expenses. The husband puts the current total, including sums for clothes and holidays which he provides for the benefit of the wife and children, at approximately £34,000 per year. I give the husband credit, in particular, for continuing to make the household payments, which he has paid throughout since the parties separated at the end of 2011. It is not possible for me to determine whether these payments reflect precisely what he should have been paying but they have, nevertheless, been substantial payments.

Proceedings

17

Following the dismissal of the wife's English divorce proceedings, she applied for leave to make a financial application pursuant to Section 13 of the 1984 Act. She was given leave by Hedley J on 13 th December 2012. The husband's application for permission to appeal this decision was refused by Thorpe LJ on 7 th February 2013.

18

The wife's financial application is dated 20 th February 2013. It seeks periodical payments, a lump sum, property transfer orders, and a pension sharing order. The wife has only very recently served her application for a pension sharing order on the relevant pension managers. Hedley J, King J, and I have made directions for the progress of the wife's application.

19

At the commencement of this hearing the papers assembled by the parties were in, what I can only describe as, a chaotic state. I am very grateful to Mr Hendron who took on the task of preparing one structured bundle containing the relevant documents. This has made the conduct of the hearing much easier than it would otherwise have been.

20

In July 2013, the husband applied for the wife's application to be dismissed. His application relied on a wide range of arguments, including issue estoppel, res judicata, and abuse of process. The application seemed to be based very largely on the fact that the wife's previous financial application, made in divorce proceedings in England, had been dismissed and also on the existence of Egyptian proceedings. I dismissed the husband's application in October 2013 as it did not seem to me to raise any arguable issue. The wife's previous financial application was necessarily dismissed because the court had no jurisdiction to determine it following the dismissal of her petition. Further, the Egyptian proceedings, as will become clear later in this judgment, are not such as to justify the dismissal of the wife's claims.

Factual Issues

21

The principal factual issue in the case is the nature and extent of the husband's resources. Another feature of the case is that the parties have also been engaged in financial and other proceedings in Egypt. It has not been easy to understand the purpose of these proceedings and the parties have given competing accounts of their progress. I will address these proceedings, as I must, when I consider the matters set out in the Sections 16 and 18 of the 1984 Act.

22

It is the wife's case, as set out in her written statements and repeated in her oral evidence, that since the marriage got into difficulties the husband has sought to hide his wealth from her and from the court. She has pointed to steps he has taken to dispose of assets in England and contends that much of his evidence about the extent of his wealth is false.

23

The husband asserts that he has given a truthful account, both of his current resources...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT