We recently wrote here about a case in which a husband was prevented from applying to vary a maintenance order until he paid the arrears under the order.
Now, a similar case has been reported, this time in relation to children proceedings.
Both cases related to the court making a ‘Hadkinson’ order, which is an order preventing a party from making or taking further steps in a case until they comply with a previous court order.
As we mentioned in the earlier post, restricting a party’s access to justice in this way 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 has impeded the course of justice.
As seen in this later case, making a Hadkinson order in proceedings relating to children is likely to be even rarer than in other types of proceedings.
The case concerned long-running litigation between the parents in relation to their children. (Note that we have slightly simplified the facts of the case, for the sake of clarity.)
During the proceedings the father was ordered to pay various sums to the mother, including for child maintenance and a legal services payment order, to enable the mother to pay her legal fees. The father failed to make all the payments he was required to make.
In March of last year the father applied for a child arrangements order, seeking to have the children move to live with him.
In January 2024 the mother applied for a Hadkinson order, prohibiting the father from pursuing his application for a child arrangements order until he paid the sums due. At that time her solicitor stated that the father owed her £285,842, and that his firm could not act for her without payment.
In February the court made a Hadkinson order requiring the father to pay £235,357 before he could proceed with his children application.
The father appealed.
Hearing the appeal, Mr Justice Moor found that in cases relating to children there should be an additional matter for the court to consider before making a Hadkinson order: the welfare of the children.
And in the circumstances of the case, where the father was seeking to have the children moved from the mother’s care to his, he found that a limited Hadkinson order would be in the interests of the children. This would protect the mother from the unfairness of not being able to afford representation, whilst giving the father a realistic opportunity of bringing the matter before the court.
Accordingly, he stayed the father’s application for a child arrangements order until such time as he pays the sum of £30,000 to the mother, to enable the mother to pay for representation at the hearing of the father’s application.
It is also worth noting that Mr Justice Moor commented that he considered that, in general, Hadkinson orders would be extremely rare in children proceedings.
The full report of the case can be found 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: chaylek / Shutterstock.com