The Family Court has rejected a husband’s application to set aside a financial remedy order made in his absence after he ceased to participate in the final hearing.
The husband and wife had separated in 2022 after 15 years of marriage. On the first day of the final hearing in the financial remedies proceedings, the husband attended remotely and made an application to adjourn the hearing, which was refused. After that he did not participate further in the hearing, and the judge proceeded in his absence and made a final order regulating the parties’ finances. The husband subsequently applied to set aside the order and the wife applied to enforce its terms.
The husband claimed that there had been a poor internet connection when he had attended the hearing and that he had been cut off. The wife asserted that he had made a conscious decision to disengage with the hearing and had disconnected the link to it.
The Court noted that, under Rule 27.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, parties are required to attend court hearings unless the court has permitted them not to do so. If the court proceeds in the absence of a party, that party may apply under Rule 27.5 to have the judgment or order set aside. The court may only grant such an application if the party has acted promptly, had a good reason for not attending the hearing and has a reasonable prospect of success.
The wife produced notes from the hearing indicating that the husband had become increasingly agitated and had been speaking over the judge before disconnecting his computer from the remote platform. It was clear to the Court that that was what he had done. He had then been sent an email informing him when the hearing would resume and stating that he should join via the remote hearing link he had already used. In such circumstances, one would expect him to have made several attempts to contact the court to inform the judge of any technical difficulties, and to make attempts to rejoin the hearing.
The Court was satisfied that he had acted promptly after the final order was made. However, given its findings as to why he had ceased to participate in the hearing, he had failed to show that he had a good reason for not attending. Nor did the Court consider that his application had a reasonable prospect of success. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gives the court a wide discretion to make orders as demanded by justice and fairness in the particular circumstances of a case. Whilst the terms of the final order were not to the husband’s liking, they were not on any view outside the judge’s discretion. The Court dismissed the husband’s application and gave him 14 days to comply with the terms of the order.