JC v MC (Refusal of Relief from Sanctions) [2026] EWFC 145

Judgment date: 22 June 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/145

MacDonald J. Refusal of relief from sanctions for deliberately failing to comply with length of evidence in H’s application to vary the maintenance he had agreed to pay W. H’s s 37 MCA injunction application also failed.

The parties are both French nationals, married in 1998. The disputed value of matrimonial assets, including international properties and H’s business interests, is £20–44m.

In July 2025, H consented to MPS of £12k per month, along with other interim financial obligations, which was reaffirmed in December 2025. H had specialist legal representation.

Several months later, H sought to reduce maintenance payments, vary aspects of the interim financial obligations and obtain, through s 37 MCA, an injunction preventing W from selling or renting one of their French properties. The court ordered a statement of no more than 15 pages to support H’s application. However, H served 206 pages, which were filed late. This included a 47-page statement, 134 pages of exhibits and a 25-page commentary. H asked the court to excuse these two breaches.

MacDonald J applied FPR 4.6 and the three-stage test for relief from sanctions from Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906. He found that the breaches were serious, significant, and deliberate. He concluded that H intentionally ignored the court’s directions in order to gain an unfair litigation advantage, and described the conduct as ‘forensic cheating’. The judge stated, ‘The concept of relief from sanctions does not embody a principle of “breach now repent later”.’

The judge considered the breach to be fundamentally unfair as H had effectively placed W in an impossible position: if she obeyed the page limits, she could not fairly answer H’s 206 pages. Similarly, if W answered H’s statement, she herself would breach the court’s order.

The judge reiterated that the party seeking to vary an interim maintenance order must first demonstrate a genuine material change of circumstances since the original order. A variation application is presumed to have been appropriate when made; it is not an appeal in disguise.

The relief from sanctions was refused; H’s evidence was excluded. Without admissible evidence, there was no basis for reducing the agreed maintenance. Therefore, the application to vary the MPS order was dismissed.

The injunction application was rejected as there was no evidence of a real risk that W would improperly dissipate assets. W’s proposal to rent out the property actually generated income rather than threatened its value.

Due to H’s failure on both applications, the court ordered him to pay £60,000 plus VAT towards W’s legal costs, payable within 28 days.