Most people assume that if they are involved in court proceedings, they have an automatic right to be heard. In almost every case, they would be right.
However, there is a rare and powerful exception known as a Hadkinson order. A recent decision of Mr Justice McKendrick in Re A and Z (No. 3) (Enforcement and Publication) [2026] EWFC 146 shows just how serious the consequences can be when a party repeatedly ignores court orders.
The case involved applications to enforce unpaid maintenance pending suit and legal services payment orders. In simple terms, one party had obtained court orders requiring the other to make payments, but those orders had not been complied with.
The court's response was striking. A Hadkinson order was made preventing the defaulting party from continuing to participate in the proceedings until the arrears were addressed.
For many readers, the obvious question is: Can a court really stop someone from arguing their case because they have not obeyed an earlier order?
The answer is yes—but only in exceptional circumstances.
What Is a Hadkinson Order?
The name comes from the Court of Appeal case Hadkinson v Hadkinson decided in 1952.
The principle is that a person who is in deliberate breach of a court order may, in some circumstances, be prevented from taking further steps in the litigation until they have complied. It is sometimes described as the legal equivalent of "If you want the court's assistance, you must first respect the court's authority."
That does not mean every breach will result in a party being silenced. Family courts are generally reluctant to prevent someone from participating in proceedings. After all, access to justice is a fundamental principle. But where a party is deliberately refusing to comply with orders while simultaneously seeking to use the court process for their own benefit, the court may intervene.
Why Are Hadkinson Orders So Rare?
The courts have repeatedly stressed that these orders are a remedy of last resort. Before making one, a judge will typically consider:
- Whether there has been a clear breach of an existing order.
- Whether the breach is deliberate.
- Whether the breach is continuing.
- Whether the non-compliance is affecting the fair administration of justice.
- Whether a less severe sanction would be sufficient.
The court must also consider whether preventing participation would be proportionate and fair. In other words, this is not a punishment. It is a tool designed to protect the integrity of the legal process.
Maintenance Orders Are Not Suggestions
One of the important messages emerging from this case is that maintenance orders and legal services payment orders are not optional. Parties sometimes assume that if they disagree with an order, or intend to appeal it, they can simply ignore it in the meantime.
That is a dangerous assumption.
The proper course is usually to apply to vary, suspend or appeal the order. Simply refusing to comply can lead to enforcement action, costs consequences, and in extreme cases, restrictions on participation in ongoing proceedings.
A Wider Lesson About Litigation Conduct
The case also highlights a broader theme that appears increasingly in modern family litigation: judicial frustration with persistent non-compliance.
Family proceedings depend upon parties obeying orders relating to:
- disclosure,
- maintenance,
- legal costs,
- property transfers, and
- child arrangements.
The system only works if court orders are respected. While family judges are often patient and pragmatic, there comes a point where repeated breaches may trigger more serious consequences.
What Should Clients Take Away From This?
There are three practical lessons.
First, if a court makes an order against you, take legal advice immediately. Ignoring it is rarely a good strategy.
Second, if compliance is genuinely impossible, tell the court promptly and seek appropriate relief. Courts are generally far more sympathetic to those who engage than those who simply refuse.
Third, if the other party is persistently ignoring court orders, enforcement options may be available. The court's powers are often broader than many people realise.
Final Thoughts
Hadkinson orders remain rare. Most family litigants will never encounter one. But Re A and Z (No. 3) is a powerful reminder that court orders are not merely recommendations. They are binding obligations.
The family courts strive to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to be heard. Equally, they expect parties to respect the authority of the court. In exceptional cases, those two principles collide. When they do, a Hadkinson order may provide the answer.
The message is simple : If you want the court to hear your arguments, make sure you have first complied with its orders.
