Cambridge Family Law Practice

A woman who has engaged in serial litigation with her former husband for years has been ordered to pay his legal costs after refusing to negotiate with him during the latest proceedings.

The disputes all stemmed from a short-lived marriage between an English father and Australian mother. After originally meeting in Australia in 2004, they married in 2006, before relocating to the UK, where their daughter, ‘A’, was born. However, the marriage broke down after 17 months.

Divorce proceedings began back in Australia and concluded in 2009 when the former couple entered into a number of legally binding settlement agreements after undertaking mediation. But this agreement did not hold for very long before a lengthy series of court hearings began.

Firstly, the mother applied in the English courts for financial assistance from her ex-husband, but agreed to drop the claim. The following year, however, she tried again, seeking a full financial package, including both spousal and child maintenance and a share of his assets, but this was dismissed.

The mother also made an unsuccessful attempt in the Australian family courts to have the original legal agreements set aside. She then made a further application in the English courts, this time seeking financial support on the basis of Section III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This governs: “Financial Relief in England and Wales After Overseas Divorce”.

But this attempt too was unsuccessful, with a judge describing it as “unnecessary and unjustified”. She was denied permission to appeal. Further attempts to pursue the father for money on the basis of Section III, Part IV and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 also failed. A judge observed:

“[The mother] has spent all of [A]’s life putting her own warped sense of reality before any care or consideration of [A]’s best interests. She has come across during these proceedings as nasty, vindictive and self-absorbed.”

But then the tide began to turn. The father failed in an attempt to have an application for child support under the Children Act 1989 struck out, and he was ordered to pay the mother £1,315 per month. Later she applied to have these payments increased by more than four thousand pounds per month, backdated to April 2020.

Mr Justice Mostyn agreed that the father probably was not paying a sufficient level of maintenance. Nevertheless, he criticised the mother for her hostile tone and repetition of various unsubstantiated allegations about the father that had been rejected by the judges at earlier hearings.

Following negotiations, the former husband agreed in December 2022 to pay his ex-wife an increased rate of £2,684 per calendar month. However, Mr Justice Mostyn later endorsed a revised formula for calculating child maintenance liabilities, as set out in a case called James v Seymour, called the “adjusted formula methodology” or AFM. On the basis of this, the father applied to have the December 2022 agreement set aside and recalculated. In the Family Division of the High Court, Mr Justice Cobb agreed to the father’s application, drawing up a revised figure, against the opposition of the mother.

Nevertheless, he noted that:

“I have had a firm eye on A’s welfare. It is clear that the parents are in significantly disparate financial situations; the father is earning very well as a successful barrister whereas the mother is out of paid employment with no immediate prospects. The father has significant assets; the mother has significant debt. This disparity in itself warrants an award of periodical payments for A which exceeds her basic needs”

Mr Justice Cobb noted that calculation formulae such as the AFM did not override the discretion of the courts to respond to each family’s individual circumstances. He awarded monthly maintenance payments of £1,957. The mother had refused to negotiate so she was ordered to pay costs.

Tricia Ashton, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, comments: “Some of the judges’ comments about the mother in this case were damning, and – indeed – her approach to the litigation ultimately led to costs orders being made against her. That said, Mr Justice Cobb made fair observations about the differences between the parents’ financial situations, which he clearly linked back to the child. Sadly, she is the ultimate victim in all of this.”

Read the full judgement here.