In PZ v ZD [2025] EWFC 171 (B), Deputy District Judge Gwynfor Evans faced a case that was modest in financial scale but immense in evidential and procedural complexity. It illustrates how procedural diligence and judicial perseverance are just as vital in modest asset cases as they are in “big money” disputes.
This case is a goldmine of practice points for family lawyers, particularly on adverse inferences, cross-border evidence-taking, and how disclosure failures can frustrate even straightforward needs-based applications.
- Modest Assets, Major Complications
At first glance, this was a typical Schedule 1 and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 case involving a medium-length marriage, three children, and modest disclosed assets. But beneath the surface lurked a web of withheld financial information, dubious bank closures, and dubious claims about living off family largesse.
The judgment makes clear that non-disclosure is not tolerated simply because the pot is small. DDJ Evans explicitly rejected any suggestion that "big money" legal principles don’t apply to smaller cases. As he said: “I reject that in its entirety”.
- Adverse Inferences: A Judicial Tightrope
The judge found the husband to be evasive, inconsistent, and untruthful—particularly in claiming zero income and no bank accounts despite large inflows from service stations and a history of complex financial dealings.
Applying the well-established principles from NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam) and Moher v Moher [2020] EWCA Civ 467, the court made robust findings and drew adverse inferences, awarding lump sums based not just on what was disclosed, but what clearly wasn’t.
Key point: even where precise quantification isn’t possible, courts may infer the existence of undisclosed assets or earning capacity if the evidence supports it.
- Remote Evidence from Abroad: The Pakistan Dilemma
A standout issue in this case was the husband's application to give evidence remotely from Pakistan. This posed unique challenges, as Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention, and the UK has no standing arrangement for taking evidence from Pakistan via video link.
Despite conflicting guidance—from the Family Procedure Rules, PD22A, and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office—the judge allowed remote evidence, relying on practical considerations and leadership guidance. However, he later regretted this, as the connection was unstable, and proceedings were frequently disrupted.
Practice tip: Counsel and parties must plan early when witnesses are abroad, especially outside Hague Convention countries. Seek official permissions, use Annex 3 of PD22A, and liaise with the Foreign Office well in advance.
- Court Orders Must Mean Something
Multiple disclosure orders were made. The husband ignored most of them. Bank accounts were allegedly closed “by the banks” just before disclosure deadlines. Key documents were missing until penal notices were issued.
The judgment is a sobering reminder that failure to comply with disclosure can be more costly than disclosure itself. Judges may—and should—fill in the gaps with common sense and robust inference.
- When Modest Meets Complex
This case underscores a central truth in family litigation: complexity does not correlate with asset value. Even where the finances are modest, gamesmanship, non-cooperation, and international entanglements can make for highly technical, demanding litigation.
Final Thought
PZ v ZD may not involve millions, but it showcases the full weight of the court’s powers when faced with persistent non-disclosure and cross-jurisdictional complications. It’s a cautionary tale for parties who believe that living overseas, pleading poverty, or closing bank accounts will shield them from judicial scrutiny.
For family lawyers, it’s a timely reminder that careful preparation, technical awareness (particularly around remote evidence and disclosure), and a firm hand on procedure are essential—even in “small” cases.
