TY v XA (No 4) [2025] EWFC 488

Judgment date: 17 December 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/488

Cusworth J.

Overview

Protracted litigation in and about FR proceedings. H’s non-compliance. Enforcement of previous orders pending permission to appeal application. Numerous enforcement and protective orders made given the husband’s obstructive approach.

Background

‘This case has a long and unfortunate history’ is how Cusworth J starts his judgment.

Lengthy previous divorce proceedings, nine rounds of children proceedings in Germany, wife’s application to relocate to this jurisdiction, wife’s application for permission to apply for relief under Part III of the MFPA 1984, husband’s application to set aside the district judge’s initial permission determination, husband’s application for permission to appeal and husband’s second application to set aside the permission determination, husband’s Children Act application, the final hearing of the wife’s Part III application and application to deal with the drafting and implementation, consideration and determination of costs resulting in a final order being made on 9 October 2025, husband’s second application for permission to appeal from the final hearing determination, the husband’s application for a stay of the court order pending application for permission to appeal, this being dismissed, and the husband’s application to adjourn application hearing today.

The previous summaries are here: TY v XA [2024] EWFC 96; TX v YA (No 2) [2025] EWFC 349; and TY v XA (No 3) [2025] EWFC 350.

The husband decided not to attend the hearing and instead holiday with his wife and their children.

Property

Pending determination of the husband’s appeal, he accepted that the security order against the West London property held with his current wife was effective to provide at least an equitable charge against his interest in that property. Wife also sought an order for sale and realisation against the London property and an injunction and preservation order.

School fees

H had failed to pay the older children’s fees with over £44,000 being outstanding and a further £23,000 due. The wife made an application for a third party debt order against the husband’s Julius Baer account to enforce previous orders in relation to school fees, or in default by means of a charge against the London property proceeds. The court found that there was no good reason why the outstanding fees should not be paid as the husband had previously accepted and acknowledged his obligation to pay. He had prioritised paying the fees of his younger children from his current marriage.

LSPO

Wife also sought further legal services order provision. Outstanding sums to her were £28,000 and H’s obligation to pay this predated the final order and had not been appealed. W sought further funding provision for the ongoing Children Act proceedings with an additional sum of £25,000. The wife had also made a fully constituted application for sums potentially running up to as much as £541,317, some of which conditional upon the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision.

The husband’s case

The husband’s case was that he could not afford to pay the outstanding amounts and there was some dispute about his financial circumstances at the hearing (liquidity and otherwise). His current wife’s Instagram accounts seemed to show significant luxury being available and it also seemed contradictory that the husband could educate, privately, his children from his current marriage but not his older children. The husband had interests in other properties, and shares and money held in Julius Baer amounting to over £9m that did not affect his immediate liquidity. H also had shares in an enterprise, ZZZ, valued at nearly £568,000. It was found appropriate that H’s older children should not go without their education and his ZZZ shares could meet the interim order sought.

Given the husband’s hostility to comply with orders, the court effectively froze/injuncted the husband from utilising his ZZZ shares save for meeting the liabilities for the school fees and the unpaid LSPO.

The court would not deal with the substantive large LSPO application pending the appeal, and in fact the husband had made yet another application to vary the previous order for ongoing maintenance provision. However, it was ordered that the husband should pay a monthly amount of such sum as he is billed by his own solicitors for work done, whether or not he has in fact chosen to pay them. Given there was an impending Children Act hearing the husband was also ordered to make an additional payment under the terms of the further LSPO in the sum of £20,000.

The court went further and made an additional injunctive order relating to the husband’s fund in the Julius Baer account, as opposed to making a third party debt order. If this was not enough security for the wife’s interests in the case, the court made another injunctive order against the husband preventing him from disposing of or dealing with the value of his interest in the London property as opposed to making an order for sale at this time.