Financial Remedies Journal: LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)

LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)18 January 2022

Published: 21/02/2022

Polly Morgan | Case EditorPolly Morgan is the sole author of the textbook Morgan's Family Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2024) as well as the author of a number of Law Society practitioner courses on family law. A Professor of Family Law at UEA Law School, Polly is also Director of the multi award-winning UEA Law Clinic. A solicitor and law firm co-founder, she now practises exclusively in the free family law advice clinic of Norfolk Community Law Service. She is one of four trustees of the Transparency Project, and a legal blogger.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2021/108.html

Roberts J.
An application by an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings for disclosure of privileged material from a PFDR was refused. The intervenor, a litigation funder, is seeking to set aside a consent order reached at the PFDR on the basis it was deliberately structured to ensure W could not meet her debt. The court acknowledged that a number of competing policy considerations were engaged, in the process attaching importance to the status of litigation funders. Whilst this application was refused on the facts, Roberts J referred the “absolute bar” (as Munby P has interpreted paragraph 6.2 PD9A) on use of anything said or done at FDR in support of a separate action in civil proceedings to the Family Procedure Rules Committee. In further judicial support for private dispute resolution, Roberts J thought it artificial to draw a distinction between the privilege attaching under paragraph 6.2 PD9A to “in-court” and private FDRs.

Further hearing reported as Simon v Simon & Level (Joinder) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 29 (21 March 2022), summary here.