header-logo header-logo

24 July 2013
Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jail for non-disclosure

"Stark warning" from family court

The Court of Appeal has sent a tough message to anyone thinking of not complying with a disclosure order in a family case.

Ex-husband, David Thursfield failed to convince the Court that a two-year prison sentence for failing to comply with a disclosure order in a matrimonial proceedings case was “manifestly excessive”, in Thursfield v Thursfield [2013] EWCA Civ 840.

The court held the judge had been right to regard the breaches of orders as serious, and to impose 12 months for punitive, and 12 months for coercive, measures.

Lord Justice Lloyd said: “It may be that if the judge had expressed his two year sentence as being entirely punitive, then some exception could have been taken to such a formulation.

“But that was not the judge’s approach…it seems to me that the judge was entitled to regard these breaches as serious and to take into account the fact that Mr Thursfield remained in breach…I see no error in principle and no manifest excess over what was appropriate in that sentence.”

Fiona Turner, family law partner at Irwin Mitchell, in an interview for LexisNexis Current Awareness, said: “the family court is clearly sending out a stark warning to those who deliberately frustrate or prevent a full enquiry into the parties’ resources, which is essential to assess the scope of a fair financial settlement on divorce. The family courts have historically taken a less severe approach, but now indicate that they are getting tougher on persistent and flagrant offenders”.

Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll