It is essential to ensure that court orders are complied with during divorce proceedings. Recently, the Family Court refused a wife’s application for relief from sanctions due to her failure to file and exchange her witness statement in accordance with a court order.
A District Judge had ordered the husband and wife to file statements under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. These were to be filed 21 days before the final hearing in the financial remedy proceedings. The husband’s statement was dated four days after the deadline; the wife’s 15 days after it. Neither statement appeared to have been formally filed and the Court was not told when they had been exchanged. Both statements exceeded the length specified in the District Judge’s order.
Rule 22.10 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 provides that if a witness statement is not served on time, the witness cannot give evidence without the Court’s permission. The time limit could not be extended by agreement between the parties by virtue of Rule 4.5(3), hence the application for relief from sanctions. The application was made during the final hearing.
In support of her application, the wife pointed to the husband’s failure to provide information she had requested until the week before the hearing. However, the Court observed that that should not have impacted upon the preparation of her statement. The Court also rejected her assertion that the husband had suffered no prejudice as a result of her statement being filed late because that had had no impact on his offer.
The Court found that there were a number of factors militating against relief. There is a need to ensure that parties comply with court orders, rules and practice directions. The application had manifestly not been made promptly, having only been made when it became clear during the final hearing that an application would be needed. There seemed to have been a conscious decision to delay filing the statement so as to include material sought from the husband, and none of the explanations in support of the application amounted to a proper, let alone a good, explanation for that decision. The effect of the wife serving her statement very late was that the husband’s time to consider it had been very severely truncated.
The Court had set out a timetable for the service of evidence which would have given each party a fair opportunity to consider the other’s statement. The wife’s choice to serve her evidence so late meant that the process then became unfair. Considering all of the circumstances of the case, the Court refused the application.