Access to justice is of course a basic right. Anyone in need of a remedy to a legal problem may apply to the court to seek that remedy.
And if the court makes an order in response to such an application then that order should of course be obeyed.
But what if someone who seeks a remedy has also failed to comply with a previous court order? Obviously, they will want any order made on their application obeyed, but if they are not themselves obeying an order then they are effectively ‘picking and choosing’ which orders should be obeyed.
So is there a way to stop someone acting with such impunity?
The answer is that there is. It is called a Hadkinson order, after a case of that name reported way back in 1952.
A Hadkinson order is an order preventing a party from making or taking further steps in a case until they comply with a previous court order.
Obviously, restricting a party’s access to justice in this way this is a drastic step for a court to take, and the court will only therefore make a Hadkinson order as a last resort, where that party is in wilful contempt of court, and that contempt impeded the course of justice.
A recent example of a Hadkinson order being made occurred in a case that took place in the Central Family Court in London in February.
The case concerned an order made in November 2017 requiring the husband to pay maintenance to the wife in the sum of £3,500 per month.
The husband failed to pay the maintenance and in April 2023 the wife issued enforcement proceedings.
In July 2023 the husband issued his own application to vary the maintenance order. Crucially, this was not made on the basis that the husband could not afford to pay the maintenance, but on the basis that the wife should by then have been earning more, and that she was cohabiting.
The wife then issued an application for a Hadkinson order, preventing the husband from proceeding with his application to vary unless he cleared the arrears on the maintenance order.
Hearing the application, the District Judge had no difficulty in finding that the husband was in contempt, and that that contempt was deliberate.
The other question for the District Judge was: Was there then an impediment to the course of justice? The District Judge found that there was, as without the maintenance payments the wife would be unable to afford legal representation to continue with the case.
Now, obviously anyone seeking to vary a maintenance order because they can’t afford it would obviously be put in a very difficult position by a Hadkinson order, as the District Judge pointed out. They wouldn’t be able to pay the arrears, and therefore would be prevented from pursuing the variation application.
However, as mentioned above, that was not the case here. The husband had not indicated that he could not afford to pay the maintenance.
Accordingly, the District Judge made the Hadkinson order.
You can read the full report of the case here.
* * *
Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.
Image: Brian A Jackson / Shutterstock.com