Bartok v Brunner [2026] EWFC 146

Judgment date: 13 May 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/146

McKendrick J.

Summary

A hearing dealing with two distinct matters: a contested divorce application, and disputed applications for financial remedies, including forum conveniens issues, and successful applications for a Hadkinson order and Hemain injunction.

Issues

1. A contested divorce application between A and R.
2. Disputed applications for financial remedies following the end of the marriage of A and R including dealing with:
   a. sitting in public;
   b. non-compliance of orders previously made;
   c. service;
   d. unless order;
   e. Hadkinson order;
   f. expedition of divorce;
   g. dismissal of directions up to and the forum conveniens hearing;
   h. Hemain injunction;
   i. declarations in respect of judgment debts owed from previous orders.

Background

A is a Hungarian national, born in April 1992. She became a British national in April 2026. R was born in America in January 1972. The parties met in 2019, were engaged later that year and married on 30 July 2020 in the United States of America. They have no children. They separated in September 2025. A applied for divorce in the jurisdiction of England and Wales on 6 October 2025. On 14 October 2025, Deputy District Judge Stuart made an order for substituted service of the divorce application out of the jurisdiction to R in America. R applied to set that aside on 7 November 2025, which was successful at the hearing on 16 February 2026, with judgment being handed down at a hearing on 27 March 2026. At that same hearing where both parties were represented, McKendrick J made orders for maintenance pending suit (MPS) and legal services payment orders (LSPO) against R, as well as acceding to R’s request for directions and a listing to determine forum conveniens.

In respect of the forum conveniens: **R filed a Part 25 application for expert evidence on Florida and Colorado family law on the eve of the hearing on 16 February 2026 to make good her forum conveniens argument that Florida or Colorado was the more convenient jurisdiction than England and Wales. The application for divorce and financial remedy proceedings was stayed to permit the determination of R’s own application dispute. An expert in Florida family law was instructed.

In respect of MPS: the court ordered backdated MPS amounting to £36,573.08. If R was unable to extend A’s tenancy, R was ordered to pay A £8450 pcm. MPS was ordered in the sum of £13,849 pcm until determination of R’s stay application and forum non conveniens.

In respect of LSPO: R was ordered pay to A’s solicitors lump sums inclusive of VAT of £175,000 to cover historic costs and costs to the end of the forum non conveniens hearing, a lump sum of £125,000 to cover the LSPO costs, and a monthly sum of £100,000 until the total sum of £700,000 had been paid.

At the end of April 2026, A made an application for a third-party debt order against R and against their solicitors. A hearing took place at which R did not attend. McKendrick J refused to make a third-party debt order and dealt with ancillary issues.

R’s non-compliance continued. In respect of the MPS and LSPO, R made only two payments of £5,500 to A. A made a series of applications and the matter was listed for a hearing on 13 May 2026. R was not represented by counsel or solicitors and did not attend. No reason was given, but on enquiry, McKendrick J was satisfied R was aware of the applications and the hearing, and that it was a fair outcome to continue in her absence.

Decision

Sitting in public

McKendrick J determined it was entirely appropriate to sit in public as the court was primarily dealing with divorce and the service of divorce proceedings, which goes to the question of status. The judge expressed it was extremely difficult to disentangle the divorce and financial remedy proceedings, and whilst he could sit in public for one and private for the other, that would create acute difficulties about what is and is not in the public domain. Further, R had been given every opportunity to attend to advance submissions contrary to sitting in open court and had failed to do so.

Considered:

1. FPR 7.30
2. Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315
3. Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47
4. Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130
5. Bloom v Bloom [2018] EWFC B10
6. Veluppillai v Veluppillai [2016] 2 FLR 681
7. W v W [2004] 1 FLR 494

Service

Attempts had been made to personally serve R on multiple occasions which were unsuccessful, with it being suggested by the server that R had intentionally been avoiding service. In consideration as to the Part 25 expert opinion evidence and the efforts A had made, McKendrick J was satisfied he could provide and grant permission for service by email out of the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Unless order

A applied for an unless order to be made in respect of the non-payment of the MPS and LSPO. The court was not satisfied it was appropriate to strike out various matters on the basis of an unless order at this stage.

Hadkinson order

The court considered the five questions that should be asked:

1. Is R in contempt?
2. Is the contempt deliberate and continuing?
3. Does the contempt create an impediment to the cause of justice?
4. Is there no other realistic and effective remedy?
5. Is the order proportionate and goes no further than necessary?

The judge was satisfied that in answering the questions, it was appropriate to make such an order preventing R from participating in the proceedings until she ‘purges her contempt’ or ‘makes good the payments that she is compelled to make’ by virtue of the orders.

Considered:

1. Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285
2. De Gafforj v De Gafforj [2018] EWCA Civ 2070
3. Mubarak v Mubarik [2004] EWHC 1158 (Fam)
4. Ahmad & Anor v Faraj [2025] EWCA Civ 468

Dismissing the forum conveniens

The judge was not satisfied this was the right approach, and expressed hope that with the orders made, R’s compliance would be secured, and she would once again engage in the proceedings.

Hemain injunction

The judge had little difficulty in granting this because when R attended the hearing represented in February 2026, and March 2026, it was agreed there should be a stay in pursuing proceedings overseas. R had gone on to act in breach of the agreement, and therefore the relief of the Hemain injunction was necessary.

Judgment debt

A sought to record a judgment debt against R of £562,811.27 due to R’s non-compliance with the previous orders. Despite the orders for MPS and LSPO being interim orders, the court found they are still judgment orders which are binding on R, and therefore it is a judgment debt which is capable of being enforced.

Considered:

1. Part 33 of the Family Procedure Rules

Costs

Costs orders were made against R for:

1. Costs in full and on indemnity basis for A’s applications in relation to R’s non-compliance;
2. Costs in relation to aspects occasioned by alternative service on the standard basis, with submissions to be heard in respect of quantum.