A financial order following a divorce has finally been made after more than a dozen separate hearings before an array of different judges.

Recorder Nahal-Macdonald, sitting as a deputy district judge, said there had been ‘systematic non-disclosure’ by the husband in HJ v QY which had prolonged the case to such an extent.

The case shines a light on the pressure on the family courts caused by parties who are acting for themselves and failing to engage properly with the system.

The court heard that the wife had issued her Form A seeking financial remedies in September 2023, since when there has been 15 different court hearings listed, heard variously by recorders, deputy district judges and a circuit judge.

The husband only attended a few hearings, resulting in several adjournments and eventually the threat of contempt proceedings.

Nahal-Macdonald said: ‘A typical case in the [Financial Remedies Court} should resolve quickly, and in no more than three hearings for most cases (a first directions appointment; then a financial dispute resolution hearing; then if needed a final hearing).

‘The reason that this case has taken over two years and a dozen court hearings to come to finality, is, in my finding, solely due to the disengagement, defiance and obstruction of H. This is invidious.’

The couple had been married in 2018 but ended three years later. They had one child together and the husband has only video contact with them. The wife told the court he was in arrears for child maintenance with the outstanding amount having reached £35,000.

Due to the husband’s failure to provide any accurate disclosure to the court, the wife had to make numerous third-party disclosure applications against banks, the DVLA and others to try to piece together the true extent of the husband’s income and assets. He remarried in 2025 in a religious ceremony while these proceedings were still ongoing.

The recorder said the husband had a disregard for his ex-wife and a lack of respect for court orders. He found the husband had significant undisclosed income and access to significant valuable assets, as showed by his designer clothes, many holidays and high-performance cars. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a lump sum of £110,000 within 28 days and to pay £750 costs to the charity Access to Justice Foundation.