Divorce: Husband’s scorched earth tactics
The Family Court has rejected a divorcing husband’s claim that his wife’s solicitors are conflicted out of acting for her because of past work they did for the couple.
It also deprecated the man’s use of his lawyers to mislead the court.
Deputy District Judge Michael Horton KC made the decision in a case that he said “has featured some of the most destructive behaviour I have seen for many years”.
This was down to the husband, who he said had apparently made good on a WhatsApp threat made to his wife in the wake of their separation that “you ain’t having shit. I’m going to fuck the whole company up”.
“I used the term ‘scorched earth’ during the course of argument. In my judgment, the term is entirely justified,” said the judge.
Their savings and one-time “thriving business” – which allowed them “the trappings of wealth” – were gone, leaving personal credit card debts on each side of about £20,000, the business in liquidation and the parties facing potential further debt under personal guarantees each of them gave to the company’s funders.
The judge recounted that he had rejected the husband’s attempts to adjourn the hearing, including his allegation that, because the parties had used the wife’s solicitors’ firm for a previous land dispute, there was a conflict of interest and they could not act for the wife “in this apparently unrelated matrimonial case”.
DDJ Horton said he “did not consider there was any conflict of interest” or that there was any reason to adjourn on that basis.
Inconsistent claims about the husband’s health and the impending birth of a child with his new partner “illustrates to me just how casually the husband is prepared to use his lawyers, who are blameless and acted on instructions, to mislead the court”, DDJ Horton said.
“He was prepared to say one thing to the court yesterday, knowing it was not true, and hide behind his lawyers. In the circumstances, and given the disparity in the explanations, I was not satisfied that there was a good reason to adjourn.”
The judge said he had “no hesitation” in preferring the evidence of the wife where it conflicted with the husband’s. “He has failed to comply with the orders of the court on numerous occasions. He has made assertions which are directly contradicted by the objective, independent evidence. He chose, it seems, to go on holiday at a time when he was pleading poverty, instead of attending the FDR [financial dispute resolution hearing].
“Shortly after the FDR, he began to be in receipt of universal credit, a means-tested benefit, in circumstances where he has been able to meet the costs orders and the maintenance pending suit order.”
The judge went on to make provision of the assets between the parties and order the husband to pay the costs of the hearing.
Leave a Comment