Senior Associate Solicitor Stuart Barton shares some insight into the recent HJ vs QY case…

Stuart Barton

Senior Associate Solicitor

“Justice delayed is justice denied.”  William Gladstone

 The above words were probably at the forefront of the Judge’s mind in the recent case of HJ v QY, heard by the Financial Remedies Court at the Royal Courts of Justice on 24 August 2026. The final hearing of this case was dealt with by Deputy District Judge Nahal-Macdonald. It is notable for many reasons:

Key points

• Unlike most reported/published cases, it was far more typical of the ‘average financial remedy case’ that often involves very limited assets and is a far cry from typically reported big money’ cases that usually involve millions of pounds being available to the parties going through a divorce;

• There had been more than a dozen court hearings in the case before it was eventually concluded at a final hearing;

• Both the husband and the wife were not legally represented for most of the case, although the wife did manage to secure free legal assistance for the final hearing;

• The husband had shown continual failure to comply with court orders and provide full and frank financial disclosure, including not attending the final hearing;

• A costs order was made against the husband at the end of the final hearing in favour of a charity, to reflect the legal assistance obtained by the wife (for which the court was clearly most grateful).

Background of the Case

The background to the case was simple. The parties met in 2017 and were married in 2018. The parties had one child together who was aged 7 at the time of the final hearing. The parties separated in 2021. The child lived with the wife and the husband had failed to comply with child maintenance obligations. The wife told the court that the husband owed her a sum of £35,000 in arrears at the time of the final hearing. The wife commenced financial remedy proceedings in September 2023 but there followed no less than 15 court hearings thereafter, heard by numerous different Judges. During the proceedings the husband remarried, although this was a ‘religious only’ marriage and not one that was legally recognised.

Court Hearings

On any level, 15 court hearings should not happen in an ‘average’ financial remedy case. Most such cases involve perhaps one or two hearings before settlement is reached and if this is not possible, a third and final hearing will usually take place. This model is however contingent on the parties each providing full and frank financial disclosure so there is clarity upon the extent of the assets available and the incomes available to the parties. Where there is no clarity on the parties’ combined financial circumstances, resolving any case becomes significantly more challenging. As the Judge noted at the final hearing: “The reason why this case has taken over two years and a dozen court hearings to come to finality is, in my finding, solely due to the disengagement, defiance and obstruction of [the husband]. This is invidious.”

To give the wife due credit, she had tried a variety of tactics to combat the husband’s lack of engagement and failure to disclose his financial circumstances. The court had made third party disclosure orders against banks, DVLA and others to try and obtain some certainty on what the husband owned. These orders had enabled the wife to present a convincing picture that the husband had received income of around £88,000 between March 2025 and March 2026. Social media posts from the husband had also shown him wearing designer clothes and travelling extensively. DVLA records indicated that the husband owned three vehicles, two of which were BMWs and the third being worth around £40,000.

At the final hearing the Judge made robust assumptions regarding the husband’s financial circumstances, including that he: “…has significant undisclosed income and assets to significant valuable assets, including high value motor vehicles and designer goods. I find that [the husband’s] lifestyle is such that he is spending significant sums on himself to the detriment of [the wife] and [their child], which ought to be deprecated.”

The question for the wife was mainly – what order should she seek from the court? Given her very modest income and lack of capital, the temptation to seek an order for spousal maintenance from the husband was clearly strong. However, sensibly guided by her legal adviser, the wife correctly concluded that the husband would undoubtedly fail to comply with any maintenance order (especially given his massive arrears of child maintenance). The wife therefore sought a lump sum from the husband, it being reasoned that whilst the husband might well fail to comply with that order, there were a range of potential enforcement options available to the wife in the future.

Conclusion

The Judge subsequently ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of £110,000 by the end of September 2026 and to pay £750 in costs to the Access to Justice Foundation in recognition of his litigation conduct during the case. Based on his track record, it seems unlikely that the husband will comply with these orders and the wife will probably have to instigate enforcement proceedings at the end of September. Sadly, it could be a long and frustrating road for her to recover all monies due to her.

So, what lessons can be learned from the above? Building up a picture as to financial circumstances of a reluctant spouse can and does take time. The usual ‘three hearing’ model does not sit well with cases of this nature. The wife did well in the above case to ‘paint a picture’ of the husband’s lifestyle through the cars he owned, the clothes he wore and the holidays he took. This could not be achieved without multiple court hearings and the unusual step of the court making third party disclosure orders to enable the wife access to disclosure that otherwise should have been provided by the husband. In short though, the wife had to make it clear to the court that the husband was never going to provide full and frank disclosure in order obtain the necessary third party disclosure orders.

Whilst there may have been an obvious temptation for the wife to seek an early final hearing and resolve matters at a much earlier date, this was probably not the right approach in the above case. It was objectively better for her to pursue a final hearing only when she could successfully the court that the husband had assets available to him and when it was clear that his lifestyle appeared to be one typical of somebody with significant income. It does seem questionable that this process required more than a dozen court hearings. However, when proceedings lack judicial continuity, it is very difficult to find a consistent approach in such a case.

If you are struggling with a financial remedy case or are worried about your spouse refusing to provide accurate financial disclosure as part of a divorce, seeking early advice is always recommended.