Cambridge Family Law Practice

A successful businessman has been prohibited from taking part in any further legal proceedings with his estranged wife unless he complies with an order that he contribute to her legal costs.

During the couple’s divorce proceedings, a Judge ruled that the husband held three significant assets:

1/ The significant sum of $25 million, which was owed to him by a company. This was partially secured by interest in a London property.
2/ His majority shareholding in a banking operation, worth an estimated £7.55 million.
3/ A number of investments worth approximately £16 million in total. The husband insisted this money had never existed and had simply been invented to create an impression of wealth for a projected buyout.

£6 million payout

A judge concluded that the latter claim was unlikely, and ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of more than £6 million, on top of his existing child and spousal maintenance obligations. He was granted permission to appeal this order, and this led to a further court declaration: a ‘legal services payment’ order or LSPO, stating that he had to contribute to the costs the wife would incur during that appeal, payable by a specified date. When he failed to make the payment, the wife applied at the Court of Appeal for a Hadkinson order.

What is a Hadkinson order?

A ‘Hadkinson order’ is a rarely used legal order issued by the family courts when a person has wilfully disobeyed previous court orders specifying one or more obligations, for example, paying child maintenance. Violating a court places a person in contempt of court. When a Hadkinson order is issued, the subject cannot partake in any further legal proceedings or appeals until they comply with the previous order or orders.

Meanwhile the husband’s solicitor insisted that she would no longer act for the husband unless any funds he managed to raise were used to settle his debts to her firm, rather than being paid to the wife under the LSPO. This was in spite of the fact that the husband’s failure to make the payment had placed him in contempt of court.

The Court of Appeal’s conclusion

In the Court of Appeal Lady Justice King explained:

“The [earlier] judge made a finding that the husband had significant funds in the disputed accounts, a finding which although challenged on appeal, the judge was entitled to have regard to. Further…[the Judge] observed that he did not rely exclusively on the disputed accounts but referred also to other significant assets. Having found the husband to be in contempt, it follows that in considering what order to make, I have in mind that the husband has the means to pay.”

She concluded:

“In my judgment requiring the payment of the LSPO as a condition of the hearing of the husband’s appeal is a proportionate means to enforce the order.”

Read the judgement here.