Husband's Application to Set Aside Financial Remedy Order Fails

Service update: Unfortunately, Willett & Co no longer offer family law services. If you need assistance with divorce, financial remedy, or pre-nuptial agreements, please seek a specialist family solicitor. We continue to advise on private client, property, commercial, crime, employment and dispute resolution matters.

The Family Court has dismissed a husband’s application to set aside a financial remedy order made in his absence after he disengaged from the final hearing. The decision underlines the risks of failing to participate in court proceedings and the high threshold required to overturn an order made when a party does not attend.

Background to the Case

The parties separated in 2022 following a 15-year marriage. Financial remedy proceedings followed to determine how their finances should be divided.

On the first day of the final hearing, the husband attended remotely and applied for an adjournment. That application was refused. After the refusal, the husband ceased to participate in the hearing. The judge proceeded in his absence and made a final financial remedy order.

The husband subsequently applied to have the order set aside, while the wife applied to enforce its terms.

The Husband’s Case

The husband claimed that technical issues were responsible for his absence, asserting that:

• there had been a poor internet connection; and
• he had been cut off from the remote hearing.

The wife, however, contended that the husband had deliberately disengaged, disconnecting himself from the hearing after becoming frustrated.

The Legal Test for Setting Aside an Order

The Court considered Rules 27.3 and 27.5 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which require parties to attend hearings unless excused by the court. Where a hearing proceeds in a party’s absence, an application to set aside may only succeed if the applicant can show that:

1. the application was made promptly;
2. there was a good reason for not attending; and
3. there is a reasonable prospect of success if the order is set aside.

Court’s Findings

Notes from the hearing showed that the husband had become increasingly agitated, spoke over the judge, and then disconnected himself from the remote platform. The Court accepted the wife’s evidence that this was a conscious decision.

The Court noted that the husband had been emailed shortly afterwards with details of when the hearing would resume and instructions on how to rejoin. In those circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect him to:

• attempt to rejoin the hearing; or
• contact the court to report any technical difficulties.

While the Court accepted that the husband had acted promptly in making his application, it found that he had no good reason for failing to attend the remainder of the hearing.

The Court also concluded that his application had no reasonable prospect of success. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, judges have a wide discretion to make financial orders that are fair in the circumstances. Although the order was not to the husband’s liking, it was well within the judge’s discretion.

Outcome

The husband’s application to set aside the financial remedy order was dismissed. The Court ordered him to comply with the terms of the order within 14 days.