‘Out of control’ foreign divorce ‘squeezing out needy litigants’

Topics: Costs, fees and funding,Family and children,Litigation,Courts business

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save

Related images

  • Royal Courts of Justice

A High Court judge has spoken out against the court time taken by wealthy international litigants engaged in ‘out of control’ divorce proceedings.

Mr Justice Holman used a judgment in an application for further maintenance to outline his concerns at the expense and hours accrued so far.

Advertisement

Holman estimated that Chai v Peng has so far incurred £1.6m in costs in England, and Malaysia, where the husband lives.

His wife of 42 years, who lives in a £30m property in Hertfordshire, was the first to commence proceedings in England and has so far incurred £920,000 in costs in this country alone.

Holman said English courts are subject to an overriding objective to deal with cases justly, but urged both parties to act before the ‘appalling litigation gets yet further out of control’.

The judge said the aggregate court fees paid by the parties to date are ‘a mere’ £2,355 – for which they have had all or part of six days of court time in England.

He added: ‘So far as the situation here is concerned, neither of them are British citizens. Neither of them currently pays any English taxes whatsoever.

‘Very serious issues ought to arise as to just how much time of an English court these parties should be able to take up on these preliminary skirmishes, whilst squeezing out the many needy litigants who need precious court time to recover their children from abduction or seek their return from care, and other such issues.’

A hearing of two days has been fixed for this spring, with a further 10 days of court time set aside in October to decide whether the divorce takes place in England or Malaysia.

Holman said the wife’s total costs for the last week’s one-day hearing were £55,000. The cost of the projected October hearing he expects to be ‘little short of mind-boggling’.

He described the litigation as now ‘completely out of control’ with ‘phenomenal’ costs and court time taken.

He urged both parties to sit down together and negotiate, but in the meantime ordered maintenance payments to the wife of £70,000 until the next hearing on 30 April, with a £100,000 limit on her legal costs.

Readers' comments (5)

  • £2355 for 6 days Court time? Your bog standard divorce would generally expect to get an FDA, and FDR and 2 or 3 days trial if need be for £255, so that doesn't seem to be that dreadful a deal for the MoJ. And these people may not be paying UK taxes on their income, but they must be pouring money into the revenue through VAT and their lawyers' taxes.

    Really, if these disgustingly wealthy people would rather spend their money on lawyers than keep it for themselves, why shouldn't they?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If she lives in a £30 Million house in Hertfordshire then she must be paying some form of tax!
    If the couple do not believe in mediation, then nothing wrong in spending their millions paying British Solicitors and Barristers. After all, those UK based solicitors and Barristers will end up being bled by the HMRC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Since when do our Judiciary determine "policy". If his Lordship doesn't want the job but prefers to deal in politics, then he can resign and concentrate on sitting in The Lords and persuading his fellow politicians to change the Rules.
    And what's this about "getting children back". From what I'm reading, the High Court seems to spend its time depriving parents of children and suppressing any publicity about the latest outrageous decision.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone else complaining about the influx of foreign money into the country would be laughed out of court!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite right Peter Ryder.

    When will the judges understand that the law is a business which raises £billions of income for the state so the state can pay for schools, hospitals and perhaps even for HMCTS to reduce delays?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save

Advertisement

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

PRACTICES FOR SALE, MERGERS, ACQUISITION & ASSOCIATION

SELLING? MERGING? VALUING? Acquiring? Free information from 01494 483728. raymondafox@aim.com www.BottomLineConsultancy.com or www.SolicitorSupermarket.biz

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition