![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> MB v EB [2019] EWHC 3676 (Fam) (19 December 2019) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2019/3676.html Cite as: [2019] EWHC 3676 (Fam) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
FAMILY
DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
(In Private)
____________________
![]() | Applicant | |
- and - | ||
![]() ![]() |
Respondent |
____________________
Vardags
Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Husband.
MR N. CUSWORTH QC (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Wife.
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE COHEN:
"H's scores fell within average in cognitive testing in the absence of stressors. When stressful elements are introduced, his performance tends to deteriorate. In particular, his ability to process complex information becomes rapidly impaired."
"Upon conclusion of the divorce proceedings, H will need to engage in long-term talking therapy and psychiatric support for him to regain a sufficient level of functioning to seek meaningful occupation. In the short-term, his ability to secure and maintain employment of any form is most likely compromised. Upon completion of the divorce proceedings and assuming a good engagement to a mental health provider, H will need at least six months to one year of talking therapy and psychiatric support to secure and maintain employment. This will have to be within a stress free environment, considering his disadvantages due to his cognitive profile.
"His mental health and consequently his cognitive abilities will most likely deteriorate should he have to cease his work as an artist. This will have a detrimental effect on his ability to seek alternative employment and live independently."
"H's ability to cope with the above stresses has been greatly reduced following the brain injury. There would be serious risk of self-harming and suicide if having to cope with [and there are the various
risk factors], namely the thought of losing his home, the thought of losing his ability to raise an income from his currently tenanted property, the thought of not being able to pay his debts, the risk of bankruptcy and the thought of having his ex-wife living in the flat above him."
"In deciding what order (if any) to make under paragraph (6) [which is the rule where the court can consider, if appropriate, the conduct of a party in relation to the proceedings], the court must have regard to –
(a) any failure by a party to comply with these rules, any order of the court or any practice direction which the court considers relevant;
(b) any open offer to settle made by a party;
(c) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;
(d) the manner in which a party has pursued or responded to the application or a particular allegation or issue."
(e) I think is not relevant, and (f) "The financial effect on the parties of any costs order."
"The FPRC is concerned that insufficient emphasis is given to encouraging parties to engage reasonably and responsibly in negotiations. In particular, there is concern that little positive guidance was given in PD.28A to assist the parties to understand the likely costs consequences of failing to litigate sensibly and failing to engage in sensible negotiations and/or of making an open proposal which is significantly higher or lower than the award ultimately made by the court."
"The court will take a broad view of conduct for the purposes of this rule, and will generally conclude that to refuse openly to negotiate reasonably and responsibly will amount to conduct in respect of which the court will consider making an order for costs. This includes in a 'needs' case where the applicant litigates unreasonably resulting in the costs incurred by each party becoming disproportionate to the award made by the court. Where an order for costs is made at an interim stage the court will not usually allow any resulting liability to be reckoned as a debt in the computation of the assets."
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital |