Complex Financial Remedy Cases at the Central Family Court FRU

The Financial Remedies Unit at CFC has issued guidance in respect of cases which will be accepted at the CFC FRU together with a form which needs to be completed.

Certificate of Financial Complexity

 

In the Family Court

In the Financial Remedies Unit of the Central Family Court

 

The marriage of				1. Outline background
[Applicant]				a. Date of Marriage			[Date]
and
[Respondent]				b. Date of Separation			[Date]
c. There are	[Number]		children of the family.
Please provide dates of birth of any children.
d. The Petition / Answer [delete as appropriate] was issued on							[Date]
at Bury St Edmunds Divorce Centre
Other court [please state]			[Name of issuing court]
and given case number
[Case Number]
e. The Decree Nisi was pronounced on					[Date]
f. The Decree Absolute was granted on					[Date]
g. There is / is not [delete as appropriate] a dispute about the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The reason for the dispute is:
Please provide brief reasons.
[Name]			Counsel / Solicitor for the Applicant/Applicant
Signature
[Name]			Counsel/Solicitor for the Respondent/Respondent

 

I/We certify that this application should be allocated to the Financial Remedies Unit of the Central Family Court because it is a case of such complexity that is appropriately dealt with in a Specialist Financial Court for the reasons stated overleaf.

Explanation of Complexity Issues

 

Delete/complete as appropriate

 

1. The assets in this case are currently estimated to be in the order of:
	a. Under £1 million
	b. £1 - £3 million
	c. £3 - £10 million
	d. Over £10 million
If the assets are in categories a., b. or c., please identify reasons as below why the case should be heard at the FRU and is not appropriate for hearing at a local hearing centre.
A. Potential allegations/issues may arise which include: [please tick all that apply]
	(1) Complex asset structures				(7) Expert accountancy evidence will be required
	(2) Complex income structures				(8) The parties’ respective contributions.
	(3) Non disclosure of assets				(9) There are/may be disputed allegations of “obvious and gross” conduct.
	(4) Assets are / were held through the medium of offshore trusts / settlements or otherwise held offshore or overseas				(10) There are substantial arguments concerning the illiquidity of assets.
	(5) Assets are/were held through the medium of family/unquoted corporate entities.				(11) There may be substantial arguments about:-which assets are “matrimonial assets” or “non matrimonial assets”
	(6) The value of family assets, trust and/or corporate entities.				(12) The application involves a complex or novel legal argument.
B. Any other reason why the case has the appropriate degree of complexity
	Yes
C. In respect of all Answers ‘Yes’ to A(1)-(12) or B please give brief details

 

Guidance Note: Financial Remedies Unit at the Central Family Court

 

The Financial Remedies Unit (FRU) is a specialist unit within the Central Family Court. It currently comprises seven full time courts conducted by specialist financial judges. It is headed by His Honour Judge Martin O’Dwyer.

 

1              Administratively it is supported by dedicated FRU staff and clerks who deal with all issuing, listing and drawing orders in Financial Matters.

2              The purpose is the efficient handling of complex financial cases.

3              The overriding criterion for a case being retained in FRU is complexity, i.e. is a case of such complexity that it is appropriately dealt with in a specialist financial unit.

4              The FRU has a number of internal procedures for the efficient managing of financial cases and an Enforcement Unit headed by DJ Robinson in cooperation with the Legal Advisers.

5              The contact email address is cfc.fru@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.

 

Bury St Edmunds Divorce Centre

6              All Forms A subject to the following should will be issued at Bury St Edmunds (BSE) Divorce Centre or other Divorce Centre and allocated to the appropriate Family Court centre on a local court basis.

 

Issuing at CFC

7              Forms A may be issued directly in FRU at the Central Family Court upon completion of the Certificate identifying the appropriate level of complexity.

8              If it appears on the face of the Certificate that the criterion of complexity is or may not be met the matter will be referred to a judge of FRU who may decide to return the application or to refer the Form A to BSE for allocation on the appropriate local court criteria or to list the matter up to First Appointment in FRU.

9              Cases inappropriately issued in FRU which have to be referred to BSE may be subject to delay as the matter is transferred between courts. Similarly those whose first appointment is listed in FRU when the matter is not appropriately retained may suffer delay as the matter is then transferred to the appropriate local family court.

10           Transfers between courts

a.    To FRU.  Any family court may transfer cases to FRU where by reason of complexity or other good reason it is not convenient to retain the hearing in the local family court.

b.    From FRU. Nothing in these procedures is intended to restrict the judicial decision as to appropriate venue and FRU will liaise with other family courts for the efficient conduct of judicial business.

11           Petitions and Forms A may be issued at the CFC and other Family Court Centres in addition where

a.    There is a jurisdictional “race” between issues between competing jurisdictions

b.    Urgent relief is required e.g. freezing orders

Such applications once issued and the urgent matters dealt with, the normal test of rules of complexity or locality should determine venue.

 

HHJ Altman, Senior Designated Family Judge for London

Rachel Jones, Operations Manager, Central Family Court

Procedure: Agreements to extend time limits

Re W (Strict Compliance with Court Orders) [2014] EWFC 22 [2015] 1 FLR 1092[2015] 1 FLR 1092

The President

“I repeat what I said in Re W. I emphasise that the parties in cases in the Family Court are not permitted to amend a timetable fixed by the court without the prior approval of the court. I emphasise the obligation on every party, spelt out (as in this case) in the standard form of case management order, to inform the court ‘immediately' in the event of any non-compliance. That obligation is imposed for good reason, though too often, as in the present case, it also is not complied with.”

Costs in Children Cases: Further Guidance from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the usual 'no order' rule in Children cases applies on appeal as much as first instance decisions. The exceptions to that rule are
(a) where a party's conduct has been reprehensible or
(b) where a party's conduct is beyond the band of what is reasonable
The Supreme Court quashed a costs order against a local authority following their unsuccessful opposition to an appeal by a parent in care proceedings.

Baroness Hale said the distinction between first instance and appeal is simply that after a first instance judgment a party will be better able to see what the court considered relevant and thus be better able to judge whether further pursuit of their case is 'reasonable'.



http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/redactor_assets/documents/2801/In_the_matter_of_S__A_Child__2015_UKSC_20.pdf

Child's Objections and the Hague Convention

Re M (Republic of Ireland) (Child’s Objections) (Joinder of Children as Parties to Appeal)[2015] EWCA Civ 26.

The Court of Appeal has given definitive guidance on the child's objections defence in an effort to bring clarity to an area which has been dogged by controversy in recent years. 

In particular the Court of Appeal confirms that considerations of the rationality of any objection or the extent of influence is only to be considered at the discretion and not the 'gateway' stage. 
69 ‘In the light of all of this, the position should now be, in my view, that the gateway stage is confined to a straightforward and fairly robust examination of whether the simple terms of the Convention are satisfied in that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views. Sub-tests and technicality of all sorts should be avoided. In particular, the Re T approach to the gateway stage should be abandoned.’ 

 71 ‘.......It would be unwise of me to attempt to expand or improve upon the list in §46 of Re M of the sort of factors that are relevant at that stage, although I would emphasise that I would not view that list as exhaustive because it is difficult to predict what will weigh in the balance in a particular case. The factors do not revolve only around the child's objections, as is apparent. The court has to have regard to other welfare considerations, in so far as it is possible to take a view about them on the limited evidence that will be available as part of the summary proceedings. And importantly, it must give weight to the Hague Convention considerations. It must at all times be borne in mind that the Hague Convention only works if, in general, children who have been wrongfully retained or removed from their country of habitual residence are returned and returned promptly. To reiterate what Baroness Hale said at §42 of Re M, "[t]he message must go out to potential abductors that there are no safe havens among contracting states".