The Family Court will usually do everything reasonably possible to ensure that both parties have a fair opportunity to participate. But there comes a point when fairness to one party must be balanced against the need to bring litigation to an end.
A recent decision, TH v AR & Anor (No. 2: Financial Remedies) [2026] EWFC 262, provides a striking illustration.
The judgment of Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, was handed down on 11 September 2026. It involved financial remedy proceedings in which the wife's engagement with the proceedings deteriorated significantly. She ultimately failed to attend the five-day final hearing. Her father, the second respondent, had never participated in either the injunction proceedings or the financial remedy proceedings.
The case is a useful reminder that non-engagement is not a litigation strategy without consequences.
The court does not simply decide a case because someone fails to attend
It would be easy to read the case as saying: "If you don't turn up, the judge will decide the case without you."
That would miss the important part of the judgment. The judge carefully considered whether it was fair to proceed.
The wife had previously been represented by solicitors and counsel but had moved to acting in person in December 2025. Thereafter, there was what the judge described as "minimal engagement". There were failures to comply with numerous orders and failures to attend hearings.
When she did not attend the final hearing, the court did not simply proceed without considering why.
The judge considered her communications, including whether they amounted to an application for an adjournment. He considered the medical evidence. He considered the possibility of her participating remotely from Russia. He also considered whether any participation directions were required.
Having done so, he concluded that it was fair for the final hearing to proceed.
That distinction matters.
The court's objective is not to punish a party for failing to attend. It is to determine whether that party has had a fair opportunity to participate.
Once the court is satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to provide that opportunity, the fact that a party chooses not to engage does not necessarily prevent the proceedings from continuing.
FPR 27.4: proceeding in a party's absence
The judgment also provides a useful reminder of FPR 27.4. The rule permits the court, in appropriate circumstances, to proceed with a hearing in the absence of a party. But there are safeguards.
The court must be satisfied, amongst other things, that the absent party has had reasonable notice of the hearing and that it is appropriate to proceed.
That is why the procedural history in TH v AR is important.
The wife's absence from the final hearing was not considered in isolation. It came after a history of opportunities to participate, numerous procedural orders and consideration by the judge of the reasons advanced for her non-attendance.
The lesson for litigants is therefore not simply:
"Turn up or lose."
It is:
"If you have a genuine reason why you cannot participate, tell the court promptly and properly. Do not assume that non-attendance will stop the proceedings."
Court orders are not optional
Perhaps the more serious problem in TH v AR was not simply the wife's failure to attend the final hearing. There had been numerous failures to comply with court orders. Those failures resulted in significant sanctions.
The wife was debarred from, amongst other things:
- advancing a conduct case;
- responding to the husband's case concerning contributions;
- defending beneficial ownership claims; and
- filing a section 25 statement.
The second respondent was similarly debarred from defending the beneficial ownership issues.
Neither respondent applied for relief from those sanctions.
That is a critical point.
A litigant who disagrees with a procedural order has remedies. Depending upon the circumstances, the appropriate response may be an application for an extension of time, an application to vary an order, an application for relief from sanctions, an appeal, or some other procedural application.
Doing nothing is rarely the appropriate response.
The importance of relief from sanctions
The case also illustrates why parties should not simply allow procedural sanctions to sit unanswered. The judge referred to the principles arising from Denton v TH White Ltd.
The precise procedural route will depend upon the order that has been breached and the nature of the sanction imposed, but the broader practical lesson is straightforward: If you have failed to comply with an order, deal with the failure immediately.
The longer a party leaves matters unresolved, the more difficult it may become to persuade the court that the litigation should effectively be reset.
In financial remedy proceedings, this can be particularly serious.
A failure to comply with an order concerning disclosure, evidence, questionnaires, witness statements or the presentation of a case may ultimately affect what a party is permitted to argue at the final hearing.
The danger is therefore not merely that a party may be criticised. Their case may become materially smaller.
Acting in person does not mean being outside the rules
The wife's position was also complicated by the fact that she was acting in person. There is an important distinction here.
The court will generally take account of the particular difficulties faced by a litigant in person. Judges will often need to adopt a degree of flexibility in explaining procedure and ensuring that the litigant understands what is required.
But that does not mean that a litigant in person is exempt from complying with court orders. Nor does it mean that the other party is required to wait indefinitely.
TH v AR is therefore a useful reminder that litigant-in-person status is not a licence to disengage from proceedings.
If anything, a party who is representing themselves needs to be especially proactive about understanding what the court requires of them and seeking help where they do not understand it.
A particularly interesting international dimension
There was another important feature of the case. The wife sought to rely, in part, upon her ability to participate in related proceedings in Cyprus.
The judge considered the evidence and rejected the suggestion that she had been unable to participate in those proceedings, noting evidence that she had in fact been represented and had actively challenged jurisdiction there.
That illustrates another important feature of modern financial remedy litigation: Courts will look at the evidence of a party's actual ability to participate, rather than necessarily accepting assertions of inability at face value.
That does not mean that participation in foreign proceedings automatically demonstrates an ability to participate in English proceedings. Circumstances may be very different. But where a party's explanation for non-engagement is challenged, the court is entitled to examine the evidence carefully.
The real lesson: fairness has two sides
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of TH v AR is that the case can be viewed from two perspectives.
From the perspective of the absent party, there is an obvious concern: "Can the court really decide important financial issues affecting me if I am not there?"
The answer is that the court must take procedural fairness seriously.
But there is another question: "How long can the other party be required to wait while someone does not engage with the proceedings?"
There is no unlimited answer to that question. Family litigation is not conducted in a vacuum. There is another party whose legal and financial affairs may remain unresolved. There may be assets which cannot be dealt with, liabilities which continue to accrue and important financial decisions which cannot sensibly be made.
The court therefore has to balance fairness to the absent party with fairness to the party who is engaging with the litigation.
That is precisely why the procedural safeguards matter.
What should you do if you cannot comply?
If you are a party to family proceedings and something prevents you from complying with an order or attending a hearing, the safest approach is generally to act before the deadline or hearing, wherever possible.
For example:
- Tell the court promptly.
- Explain precisely what has happened.
- Provide supporting evidence where appropriate.
- Ask for the specific order you need — for example, an extension, adjournment or variation.
- Do not assume that an email explaining the problem automatically changes the court's order.
- If a sanction has already taken effect, obtain advice about whether an application for relief from sanctions is required.
- Continue engaging with the proceedings unless and until the court orders otherwise.
Simply disappearing from the litigation is likely to make matters considerably worse.
Don't confuse a difficult case with a hopeless case
There is also a wider lesson for anyone representing themselves. Family proceedings can be intimidating. Financial remedy cases can involve extensive disclosure, complicated assets, expert evidence and difficult personal circumstances.
It can be tempting to avoid correspondence, ignore orders or stop attending hearings because the process feels overwhelming. That is understandable. But it is usually counterproductive.
A difficult case is not necessarily a hopeless case. A failure to engage can make it one.
TH v AR & Anor (No. 2) demonstrates the point particularly clearly. The court will generally try to ensure that a party has a proper opportunity to be heard. But that opportunity comes with a corresponding responsibility to engage with the process.
The Family Court is ultimately required to determine cases fairly and, importantly, to bring litigation to a conclusion.
If you have a problem participating, ask the court for help. If you disagree with an order, challenge it through the proper procedure. If you need more time, ask for it.
What is dangerous is simply doing nothing.
TH v AR & Anor (No. 2: Financial Remedies) [2026] EWFC 262 is a timely reminder that, in family proceedings, non-engagement can itself become one of the most consequential decisions a litigant makes.
