enforcement Archives - James Thornton Family Law

20 June 2025

When “No” Means the Court Says It for You: DH v RH and the Power to Sign

In DH v RH [2025] EWFC 175, Mr Justice MacDonald delivered a powerful message to recalcitrant litigants in financial remedy cases: refusal to cooperate doesn’t stop the court—it just means the court steps in for you.

This case wasn’t about redrawing financial lines or recalculating assets. It was about enforcement—getting a final order actually implemented. And in this case, that required the court to sign property transfer documents on behalf of the non-compliant party.

The Background: A Final Order Ignored

The court had already made a comprehensive final financial remedy order in May 2024, awarding the wife around £6.2 million, structured carefully to provide both parties with housing and financial security. But one year later, the wife had refused to implement the order, particularly the transfers of real estate in the US, despite repeated attempts by the husband to resolve matters.

Her conduct was described as “deliberately obstructive”, and included:

Ignoring orders to engage in joint tax mitigation;
Filing a blizzard of unmeritorious applications, some without notice;
Refusing to sign key documents needed to transfer the properties; and
Even failing to attend the final enforcement hearing—offering no credible medical reason not to.

The Court's Response: Signing for Her

Relying on section 39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court did what had to be done: it signed the property transfer documents itself, in her place.

This was not a surprise. The final order had anticipated this possibility and included a specific clause (paragraph 27(g)) allowing for judicial execution of documents in default of cooperation. As Mr Justice MacDonald put it, the court’s intervention was the only way to ensure the order had meaning:

“Without the court using its powers… the wife will continue to refuse to implement the order.”

This wasn’t punitive—it was practical justice, delivered with precision.

Not Just About Signatures: The Cost of Non-Compliance

The judgment also tackled the wife’s application to set aside the final order, citing claims of tax miscalculation, asset undervaluation, and fraud. But these were found to be recycled arguments from her dismissed appeal, unsupported by any credible new evidence.

In dismissing that application, the court emphasised:

The high threshold for set-aside: fraud, mistake, non-disclosure, or a Barder event.
The strong public policy in finality of litigation, especially where delay is self-inflicted.
Her repeated breaches of directions, especially on the tax issues she claimed to contest.

She was also ordered to pay indemnity costs, reflecting the court’s frustration with her litigation conduct.

Why This Case Matters for Family Lawyers

Enforcement is real. If you build contingencies into your final order (as here), you can save months of delay when one party drags their feet.
Section 39 is powerful. The court’s ability to execute documents has real teeth. It’s a crucial clause to include in orders involving property transfers.
Adjournments require more than just a letter. The court showed a firm approach to late medical-based adjournment requests, especially where there's a history of obstruction.
The limits of set-aside. You can’t relitigate a final order just because you don’t like the outcome—especially if the problems were caused by your own non-compliance.

Final Thought

DH v RH is a masterclass in how the court enforces finality, not just by dismissing baseless set-aside applications, but by stepping in to sign the dotted line when necessary. It’s a reminder that in family law, “final order” means just that—and if you refuse to cooperate, the court has a pen ready to take your place.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, enforcement

18 June 2025

Disclosure or Detention? A Stark Warning from Ozturk v Ozturk

In Ozturk v Ozturk [2025] EWFC 162 (B), Her Honour Judge Moreton handed down a judgment that should ring loud alarm bells for any party tempted to ignore court orders in divorce proceedings.

This was not a case about big money or complex asset structures—it was about a basic, foundational requirement of every financial remedy case: filing Form E. The husband didn’t file his Form E. He didn’t attend court. He didn’t engage. The result? A suspended prison sentence and a very public warning.

What Happened?

Mr Ozturk was ordered to file his Form E—with supporting documents—by 12 November 2024. That deadline came and went. The order had been personally served on him. He did nothing.

He ignored:

The initial directions to file Form E by 3 September 2024.
The First Directions Appointment (FDA) on 8 October 2024.
A further adjourned FDA in December 2024.
All attempts to resolve matters out of court.
The hearing on 8 May 2025 to determine whether he should be committed to prison for contempt.

Despite being properly served with the application and the hearing notice, he simply didn’t show up. The judge concluded that his non-engagement was deliberate and sustained.

The Sentence: 28 Days in Prison – Suspended

The court found Mr Ozturk in contempt of court for breaching a clear, personally served order that carried a penal notice. A custodial sentence of 28 days was imposed, but suspended on the condition that he finally complies and files a proper Form E within 28 days.

The judge made clear: this is his last chance.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners and Clients

Form E Is Not Optional

Financial disclosure—via Form E—is the bedrock of fair outcomes in divorce. Without it, the court can’t evaluate needs, assets, or obligations. Non-compliance isn’t a strategy; it’s a contempt of court.

Deliberate Non-Engagement Will Not Be Tolerated

The court described Mr Ozturk’s conduct as “wilful and repeated breaches.” This is what distinguishes late compliance from contempt. Judges will give latitude for mistakes or delay—but not for defiance.

Committal Is Real

This case is a reminder that the penal notice isn’t an idle threat. Imprisonment for failure to comply with a financial remedy order is rare, but absolutely possible—especially where the party has received repeated opportunities to engage.

Litigants in Person Are Not Exempt

Mr Ozturk was unrepresented, but that didn’t excuse his conduct. The court was satisfied that he understood his obligations and had simply chosen to ignore them. The court took steps to ensure he’d been served and had notice, which made his absence all the more serious.

Costs Follow Non-Compliance

The court also awarded costs of £2,210.40 against Mr Ozturk, payable within 14 days. Delay and obstruction don’t just slow the process—they cost money, and the court will not hesitate to make non-compliant parties pay.

Final Thought

Ozturk v Ozturk isn’t about high finance—it’s about high stakes. If you don’t comply with disclosure obligations, you risk not just a worse financial outcome, but potentially your liberty. For lawyers, this case is a powerful tool to explain to reluctant clients why Form E isn’t a bureaucratic nuisance—it’s a legal obligation.

And now, thanks to this judgment, we can say with absolute clarity: ignore it at your peril.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, committal, enforcement, form e, imprisonment, penal notice

13 May 2025

When Final Orders Don’t Mean Finality – Revisiting Joint Lives Maintenance GH v IH 2025 EWFC 120

The decision in GH v IH [2025] EWFC 120 (B) provides a revealing look at the long tail of family financial orders, where joint lives maintenance collides with real-life messiness: patchy compliance, unclear enforcement, varying income, and the challenge of aging parties still locked in litigation over a marriage that ended more than a decade ago.

District Judge Hatvany’s extempore judgment is a detailed and pragmatic application of section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, offering clarity on when variation is appropriate—and a cautionary note about maintenance orders that refuse to die quietly.

The Context: A Long Marriage, Long Orders, and Long Running Problems

The parties married in 1993 and divorced in 2012. The original financial order included joint lives maintenance of £2,000 per month, linked to RPI. But over a decade later, the wife brought enforcement proceedings claiming nearly £17,000 in unpaid RPI increases. The husband countered that he had “overpaid” by continuing to cover her private health insurance and mobile bills.

Meanwhile, both parties were approaching retirement age, the 2012 pension sharing orders hadn’t yet been implemented, and a jointly owned property was still awaiting sale. The wife lived mortgage-free; the husband remained self-employed with multiple properties and ongoing family obligations.

Notable Issues in the Judgment

Joint Lives Maintenance Under Pressure

DJ Hatvany acknowledged that the original decision to order joint lives maintenance might not reflect modern practice, particularly where no long-term disability is involved. But with the wife nearing 66, holding a blue badge, and having health challenges, the original decision to make a joint lives order wasn’t inappropriate.

However, the judge was clear that indefinite £2,000 monthly payments were no longer justified, especially given the husband’s declining income and the wife’s own unacknowledged income from a solar farm.

Credibility of Needs Claims

The wife claimed her needs were over £5,000 per month—including £900 for private health insurance—despite living alone in a mortgage-free property. The judge pegged her actual needs closer to £3,000 per month, noting that recent expenditures on kitchen renovations, new carpets, and landscaping were not indicative of hardship.

What Counts as “Payment”?

The husband’s defence to the enforcement claim was novel but accepted: while he hadn’t paid the RPI-linked uplift, he had continued to cover the wife’s private health insurance, dental plan, and phone bills. On balance, the court found these payments exceeded what was due—so the enforcement application failed.

Variation Principles and Forward Planning

From April 2025, the husband was ordered to pay £1,000 per month—not £2,000—reflecting the wife’s growing income from pensions and notional solar farm profit. But the judge expressed real concern about the lack of finality and urged the parties to consider agreeing a Duxbury-style capitalisation of the remaining maintenance obligation.

“Otherwise, I fear the door may be left open to the husband making a further variation application as he approaches retirement, or for the wife to make a further application if her circumstances change.”

Key Points for Family Law Practitioners

Maintenance variation must reflect needs and affordability. The court closely scrutinised both parties’ lifestyles and income, including under-declared income sources.
Creative compliance can be accepted. Payments made outside the strict terms of the order (e.g., health insurance) may still discharge the obligation if clearly linked and recorded.
Clean breaks are preferable. This case is a textbook example of the cost and stress of lingering maintenance obligations—especially with pensions and properties still unresolved more than a decade on.
Judicial restraint on costs. The judge pointedly asked for “no claim for costs” at the next hearing, to avoid incurring further legal expense over small differences.

Final Thought

GH v IH is a reminder that joint lives orders are often slow-burning sources of litigation, particularly when combined with unimplemented pension sharing, contested enforcement, and shifting needs as parties age. A Duxbury lump sum may not feel satisfying in the moment—but compared to another decade of claims, counterclaims, and spreadsheets—it can be a gift of finality.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, enforcement, joint lives maintenance, variation

7 February 2025

When One Party Won’t Cooperate: Lessons from WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B)

Few things are as frustrating in family law as a party who simply refuses to comply with court orders—particularly when it involves selling the former matrimonial home (FMH). The case of WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B) is a prime example of the legal mechanisms available when one spouse obstructs a court-ordered sale.

This case is also notable for the court’s use of the Thwaite jurisdiction, which allows variations to existing financial remedy orders when circumstances change or a party frustrates their implementation. Below, we explore the key lessons from this case and practical takeaways for family law practitioners.

The Facts: A Sale Stalled by One Party

WZ (the wife) and HZ (the husband) had been locked in financial remedy litigation for years. A final order had been made in 2021, which required the sale of the former matrimonial home to provide the wife with funds to meet her housing needs. The order anticipated that the FMH would be on the market within three months and sold within six months.

However, three years later, the house remained unsold, and the wife continued living there rent-free while the husband paid the mortgage and maintenance. The husband accused the wife of deliberately frustrating the sale by refusing access to estate agents, rejecting reasonable offers, and even removing the ‘For Sale’ sign.

Faced with ongoing delays, mounting legal costs, and financial pressure, the husband returned to court seeking:

An order for possession of the FMH, allowing him to take control of the sale.
A Thwaite variation, arguing that the delay had resulted in a financial windfall for the wife, and the court should adjust the division of proceeds.

The Court’s Approach

Ordering Possession: A Rare but Necessary Step

The court acknowledged that it had tried everything to enforce the sale. Previous orders had given the husband sole conduct of the sale, but the wife’s obstruction had rendered this ineffective.

Citing Derhalli v Derhalli [2021] EWCA Civ 112, the judge confirmed that the court has the power to grant possession under FPR 9.24, which allows the court to enforce orders under Section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This power enables the court to remove an obstructive party from the home to ensure compliance with a sale order.

🔹 Lesson for practitioners: If a party repeatedly frustrates a sale, a possession order may be the only viable enforcement tool. This case shows that the courts are willing to take robust action when necessary.

Thwaite Jurisdiction: Adjusting Orders to Reflect Reality

The Thwaite jurisdiction, derived from Thwaite v Thwaite [1981] 2 FLR 280, allows courts to vary the terms of an executory order (one that has not yet been implemented) to achieve fairness.

In this case, the court found that:

The wife had benefited unfairly from delaying the sale, as property prices had risen significantly.
The original order assumed a sale in 2021, meaning the husband was now paying much more than intended.
The original division of proceeds was no longer fair, given the wife’s obstruction.

The court ruled that the increase in the sale price should not benefit the wife entirely. Instead, a portion of the additional equity would go toward covering the husband’s legal fees and outstanding maintenance obligations.

🔹 Lesson for practitioners: The Thwaite jurisdiction is a powerful tool in financial remedy cases where one party frustrates implementation. It ensures that delays do not unfairly enrich the obstructive party.

Key Takeaways for Family Lawyers

Enforcing Sales: Courts Will Step In

If a party refuses to cooperate, courts can grant possession orders to remove them from the property.
Even where a party is living in the FMH, they cannot indefinitely obstruct a sale.

Thwaite Variations: A Safety Net for Changing Circumstances

Orders that remain executory can be adjusted if circumstances change.
Deliberate obstruction can result in a financial penalty, ensuring the obstructive party does not benefit from their own misconduct.

Acting Early to Avoid Costly Litigation

This case took three years to return to court, during which time both parties incurred significant legal costs.
Had the husband applied earlier for enforcement measures, he may have avoided much of the financial and emotional toll.

Final Thoughts: The Cost of Non-Compliance

WZ v HZ [2024] highlights the perils of failing to comply with financial remedy orders. For parties tempted to frustrate court-ordered sales, the judgment sends a clear warning: the court has the power to act, and it will.

For practitioners, this case reinforces the importance of early intervention. If one party is blocking a sale, don’t wait—seek enforcement, possession orders, or Thwaite adjustments before delays spiral into costly litigation.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, enforcement, fmh, sale of property, thwaite, thwaite jurisdiction

12 November 2024

Charging Orders in Family Law: Insights from GH v H [2024]

The recent case GH v H [2024] EWHC 2869 (Fam) highlights the enforcement of financial remedies via charging orders in family proceedings. Here, the High Court made a final charging order on a husband’s property to enforce unpaid financial orders owed to his ex-wife and child. This case underlines a significant enforcement route—charging orders—which allows a party to secure a financial remedy against a debtor’s property, providing creditors with a lien on that property.

Key Issues and Legal Points

Unpaid Financial Orders: In GH v H, the husband owed substantial sums following a financial remedy order and failed to make payments despite multiple court orders. After unsuccessful attempts at securing compliance, the court granted a charging order, allowing the wife to secure her owed funds directly against the husband’s assets.
Charging Orders Explained: Charging orders are typically used to secure unpaid sums against a debtor’s real property, like a home. This measure enforces payment by ensuring that, if the property is sold, the proceeds satisfy the debt. In family law, charging orders can also help secure future payments due under financial orders, benefiting the party entitled to the funds. Charging orders thus serve as a deterrent for debtors who might otherwise evade payment.
Children as Beneficiaries of Orders: Notably, in GH v H, some unpaid sums were due directly to the parties’ child. The court’s interpretation allowed these sums to be included in the charging order, affirming that sums due to third-party beneficiaries, such as children, can still be secured.
Interest on Unpaid Periodical Payments: The judgment clarified that interest accrues on unpaid periodic payments, such as maintenance, when ordered in the High Court. The interest, accruing at 8% per annum, reinforces the financial burden of non-compliance and incentivises timely payment.
Cost Implications and Fixed Costs: The case raises essential questions about costs in enforcement applications. Family law proceedings traditionally follow a fixed-cost regime, capping fees for enforcement applications. However, given the repeated attempts and non-cooperation of the husband in GH v H, the court exercised its discretion to order higher costs, a reminder that deliberate non-compliance may incur increased financial penalties.

Key Highlights for Practitioners

GH v H offers crucial insights into enforcing family law orders through charging orders, emphasising that courts will utilise every available enforcement method to secure compliance. Practitioners should note the court’s readiness to enforce orders robustly, especially for clients facing significant arrears in financial remedies, and the importance of considering charging orders early in complex cases.

Practical Implications

Charging orders provide a viable option for practitioners when dealing with non-compliant parties. As illustrated in GH v H, the court’s discretionary powers, particularly regarding interest and cost orders, can be substantial. For clients, this serves as both a caution and assurance—non-compliance with financial orders incurs serious consequences, while compliance is rewarded with court-backed enforcement mechanisms to ensure fairness and security in family financial matters.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, charging orders, enforcement, gh v h 2024

7 November 2024

Persistent Non-Compliance in Divorce – Truth, Lies, and Rolexes: Key Lessons from Williams v Williams [2024] EWFC 275

In Williams v Williams [2024] EWFC 275, the court contended with a husband who repeatedly flouted court orders and gave unreliable evidence, taking non-compliance to a new level with statements deemed “demonstrably untrue.” Andrew Williams’s actions, which included concealing assets and lying about possessions, provide a fascinating study in the consequences of non-disclosure in family law.

Case Background

Abigail Williams sought a fair financial remedy following her separation from Andrew, whose behaviour quickly raised red flags. Despite court orders, he failed to provide reliable information, refusing full disclosure of his assets, which spanned an array of private companies and overseas investments. Throughout the proceedings, he repeatedly breached disclosure obligations and failed to attend hearings, showing a disregard for both his spouse and the judicial process.

Courtroom Drama: The Rolex “Wind-Up”

The court’s assessment of Andrew’s honesty reached a peak when he claimed, while testifying, that he was wearing a cheap Casio watch instead of the gold Rolex visible on his wrist. The next day, he admitted this was untrue, calling it a “wind-up.” This episode encapsulated his approach to the proceedings, and Moor J ultimately concluded that Andrew was “entirely dishonest” and had intentionally tried to “pull the wool” over the court’s eyes. Such blatant dishonesty significantly impacted the court’s ruling, reinforcing how detrimental non-compliance and lack of transparency can be in financial remedy cases.

Key Legal Takeaways

The Importance of Full Disclosure:
Under family law, parties are required to make a full and frank disclosure of their financial situations. Andrew’s failure to do so, coupled with his clear dishonesty, led the court to apply sanctions. Practitioners must remind clients that attempts to obscure financial reality, even in jest, will be detrimental to their case.
Contempt of Court and Enforcement Measures:
Andrew’s disregard for court orders led to findings of contempt. The court employed enforcement tools such as freezing orders and debt recovery actions, showcasing its commitment to protecting the integrity of proceedings. For clients and practitioners, this highlights the critical need for adherence to court orders, as failing to do so can lead to severe consequences.
Complex Asset Structures and Valuation:
Andrew’s assets, concealed within complex business structures, made valuations challenging. Practitioners should be aware that complex or hidden assets will prompt the court to take thorough investigative steps, such as ordering forensic accounting, and may lead to adverse inferences if information is incomplete.

Conclusion

Williams v Williams illustrates the dangers of dishonesty and non-compliance in financial remedy cases. Andrew’s behaviour not only affected his credibility but also led to substantial court-imposed penalties, underscoring the court’s intolerance for dishonesty in asset disclosure. Family law practitioners should note the court’s stance, as this case serves as a powerful reminder to clients of the importance of honesty and transparency in financial proceedings.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, disclosure, enforcement, non compliance, non disclosure, rolex, standish, williams v williams

9 October 2024

Sequestration Orders and the Sale of Property for Legal Costs: Insights from AB v CD [2024] EWHC 2521 (Fam)

In AB v CD [2024] EWHC 2521 (Fam), the High Court tackled a complex and challenging situation involving the enforcement of child arrangement orders across international borders. The case sheds light on how courts use sequestration orders—a powerful legal tool—to enforce compliance and fund essential legal actions, particularly in family law disputes that cross jurisdictions.

Background: The Child Arrangements Dispute

The case centred around a child, EF, who was wrongfully taken abroad by her father, CD, despite a UK court order stating that she should live with her mother, AB. In April 2023, the court ruled that EF would reside with AB. However, during a trip to Florida, CD violated this order by taking EF out of the UK and failing to return her as required. AB was then forced to seek a court order to bring her daughter back, sparking a legal battle that crossed international borders, including the need for legal action in Dubai.

Key Legal Issues at Play

Sequestration Orders and Funding Legal Action:
- AB asked the court to allow the sale of CD’s UK property to fund her legal efforts to enforce the child arrangements order in Dubai. The court explored the history and modern application of sequestration orders, which traditionally compel compliance with court orders but, in this case, were sought to generate funds for international litigation.
Contempt of Court:
- CD was found in contempt for failing to comply with the court order to return EF. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 28 days, giving him the opportunity to return the child and avoid incarceration. As CD failed to comply, he faces arrest and imprisonment should he return to the UK.
Jurisdictional Reach and Modern Enforcement Powers:
- The court discussed how sequestration orders, once primarily aimed at enforcing financial obligations, have evolved under the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to address more complex family law enforcement issues, including the confiscation of assets to fund necessary litigation arising from non-compliance.
Procedural Considerations for Contempt and Confiscation:
- The court highlighted the importance of adhering to strict procedural rules when pursuing contempt actions. Proper notification of the person in contempt is crucial, and confiscation orders can only follow a formal finding of contempt. The court emphasised that without a clear procedural pathway, such as fresh contempt proceedings, AB’s request to sell CD’s property could not proceed.

Court’s Decision: Finding a Path Forward

The court acknowledged the merit in AB’s application but ultimately concluded that under the current procedural framework, it lacked the authority to grant a sequestration order for the sale of CD’s property. The judge suggested that AB could initiate fresh contempt proceedings, which would enable the court to issue a confiscation order and allow the sale of the property to fund her legal costs.

Past cases like Richardson v Richardson and Mir v Mir were referenced to illustrate similar legal issues regarding the enforcement of court orders through sequestration.

Implications and Next Steps

This case highlights the difficulties involved in enforcing international child arrangements orders and the creative use of sequestration to meet these challenges. The court’s decision offers AB a potential legal pathway by initiating fresh contempt proceedings, which could lead to a confiscation order and allow her to fund her legal fight in Dubai to secure EF’s return.

Key Takeaways for Family Law Practitioners:

Sequestration as a Versatile Enforcement Tool: While sequestration orders are traditionally used to enforce financial obligations, this case demonstrates their potential use in funding litigation when court orders are disregarded.
Strict Adherence to Contempt Procedures: Practitioners must ensure that all procedural requirements are met in contempt applications, including providing proper notice to the person in contempt. Without these steps, applications risk being dismissed.
Evolving Jurisdictional Powers: Courts now have broader powers under the FPR and CPR to confiscate assets in family law disputes, reflecting a modern approach to enforcing compliance with court orders, especially in international cases.
Cross-Border Enforcement: The case underscores the complexity of enforcing child arrangements orders across jurisdictions and the importance of innovative legal strategies to secure compliance in foreign countries.
Fresh Legal Pathways for Enforcement: The court’s guidance on pursuing fresh contempt proceedings provides a clear roadmap for future legal actions in cases where sequestration orders are sought to fund international litigation.

Conclusion

The decision in AB v CD [2024] EWHC 2521 (Fam) highlights the court's adaptability in using traditional legal remedies, like sequestration, in new and creative ways to address the growing challenges of international family law disputes. The case provides valuable insights into the evolving nature of enforcement mechanisms and the importance of procedural precision in contempt and confiscation applications. For family law practitioners, understanding these evolving tools is critical to securing compliance in increasingly complex international cases.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, child arrangements, contempt, enforcement, international, sale of property, sequestration