HHJ Farquhar. Straightforward financial remedy proceedings continued an additional 2½ years after the agreement at the FDR. Significant litigation misconduct, far beyond acceptable standards, resulting in striking delay and wasted costs orders; criticism also of conduct of W’s solicitor. The judgment provides useful guidance on anonymisation in financial remedy judgments where there is litigation misconduct.

Background

W 51. H 52. Non-pension assets in the sum of £1.72m; [11]. Proceedings commenced in 2019, FDA on 12 March 2020, six further hearings before an effective FDR on 21 April 2022. However, the final order was not approved until October 2024, primarily because of errors with the draft order, leading H to believe that W’s instructing solicitor acted in bad faith; [3]. Of note, at the final hearing in October 2024, both parties agreed that the original agreement should be put into effect. The narrow remaining issue that required a decision was in relation to costs; [6].

Litigation misconduct

There was acrimony between H and W’s solicitor which worsened after the FDR because the agreed handwritten document from the FDR did not correspond with the typed order which was approved by the court. Although the relevant errors in that order were corrected and an amended order was approved, the proceedings did not end at that point; [19] to [20]. Per HHJ Farquhar at [16], ‘This case has followed a tortuous route’ and citing DDJ Worthley (as he then was) at an earlier hearing in the matter, ‘acrimonious, protracted, and difficult litigation history’.

Paragraphs [20] to [27] set out the excessive litigation that took place including H making over 20 applications, asking HHJ Farquhar to recuse himself, and making complaints to SRA, HMCTS, ICAEW, Tax Disciplinary Board relating to the tax report, Parliamentary Ombudsman, and Land Registry. There were 22 orders since the date of the initial agreement at FDR. Brighton Family Court received over 850 emails; [61]. Disclosure or the lack of it was a feature in this case which led to delay, see [40] to [51].

Outcome

The agreement was approved and formalised into an order, subject to one variation that the property should be sold rather than transferred to W. The division of assets is set out at [14] and HHJ Farquhar stated:

‘I do not intend to perform any in-depth analysis of this agreement … I approach this case in the same manner as I would when considering a Consent Order application. I simply have to consider whether it falls within the range of reasonable orders, and I am satisfied that that is the case. It follows that I will approve an order that implements this arrangement.’

In relation to the errors with the draft order, blame was appropriately apportioned to both H and W’s solicitor, for example H when he took issue with the word ‘Property’ being changed to ‘property’ with a lower case ‘p’. Another example of H’s misconceived and unreasonable perception is set out at [38]. Equally W’s solicitor was criticised for not easily dealing with obvious errors on his part which led to the complete breakdown of trust between him and H, resulting in H’s numerous unmeritorious applications and raising many points which had no legal or logical basis; [37]. It was decided that the breaches of the Family Procedure Rules by W’s solicitor, set out at [52] to [56], did not lead to an unfair final hearing and no further costs or sanctions were needed.

Given the difficulties in the case, HHJ Farquhar drafted the order himself, allowing 7 days for clarification; [67]. The relevant law and guidance when seeking clarification is succinctly set out at [70] to [72], citing Baker LJ in YM (Care Proceedings) (Clarification of Reasons) [2024] EWCA Civ 71.

Of note, H’s conduct satisfied the guidance in Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315 as to when parties should be named; [77]. See guidance on the question of anonymisation by Peel J in the case of Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 at [110] onwards.

Costs

Both parties sought for their costs to be paid; W £90,000, H £173,355; [4]. H was ordered to pay £20,000 towards W’s costs; [5]. There were previous wasted costs orders made against W’s solicitors; [56].