Three useful developments in ancillary relief
What happens if the Value of Assets goes downhill (or upwards) after the Final Hearing?
If the value of matrimonial assets proves to be lower than appeared to be the case to the court at the time of a final order, then can a ‘disadvantaged’ party apply to set aside the final order? In Judge v Judge CA 2008 (see Family Law, April 2009) it was held that if the trial judge had actually considered that his estimate of the level of assets might ultimately prove wrong, then there was not a ‘mistake’ on the court’s part which justified a party seeking to set aside the final order (as long as there had not been actual falsehood at the time of the final order). With falling house and business values this recent decision might prove very useful for a party seeking to resist an application to set aside.
It is not at all unusual for even a represented party to fail to make Open Proposals in Ancillary Relief proceedings. Can that party be penalised in costs?
Yes. In H v H [2009] FLR (forthcoming) the High Court (Moylan J) held that a failure to make sensible open proposals is likely to have costs consequences.
Can a party who is guilty of Litigation Misconduct be penalised in ways other than Costs
Yes. In F v F, (High Court, Baron J) the court held that a husband had sought to deceive the wife and the court. This had led to more costs being expended which diminished the asset base. The court held that the ancillary relief order itself could be calibrated to compensate the wife.