25 February 2025

When a Consent Order Becomes a Battlefield: Lessons from Grace v Grace [2025] EWFC 37

Family law disputes often come with high emotions, but Grace v Grace [2025] EWFC 37 (B) takes acrimony to a whole new level. What should have been a straightforward financial remedy consent order in April 2022 turned into two and a half years of relentless litigation, over 850 emails to the court, more than 20 separate applications, and allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct.

This case is a cautionary tale about how financial disputes can spiral out of control, the importance of finalising consent orders properly, and the consequences of litigation misconduct. It also raises important points about anonymisation of financial remedy judgments—or, in this case, the lack thereof.

What Happened in Grace v Grace?

Mary-Jane Grace (the wife) and Ian Douglas Grace (the husband) agreed on a financial settlement at a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing in April 2022. The deal was relatively straightforward:

  • The former matrimonial home (FMH) would be transferred to the wife, who would sell it and retain the proceeds.
  • The husband would keep his commercial properties and a Spanish property.
  • There would be a clean break.

However, what should have been a final resolution instead descended into chaos.

The Reasons for Delay

Each party blamed the other for the delays:

  • The wife argued that the husband had hijacked the case by repeatedly filing applications and bombarding the court with endless emails.
  • The husband alleged that the wife’s solicitor, Mr Gardner, had deliberately altered the terms of the agreement in the typed consent order submitted to the court—something he described as a conspiracy to seize his legal estate.

Over the next two years, the case became bogged down in endless litigation, with the husband making multiple applications, complaints, and even a Judicial Review against HMCTS, the Judiciary, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and various accountants involved in the case.

Key Legal Issues from the Case

  1. Consent Orders Must Be Properly Finalised

One of the main sources of conflict in this case was the drafting of the consent order. The handwritten agreement made at court in April 2022 was not identical to the typed version submitted later. Although the changes were minor, the husband seized on these discrepancies, arguing they were deliberate alterations that fundamentally changed the settlement.

The court found that:

  • The differences were insignificant—small wording changes like “charge” vs. “charges” and minor grammatical edits did not affect the substance of the order.
  • However, errors in drafting should have been corrected quickly, and the solicitor should have ensured the order reflected exactly what was agreed.

Practice Point: Ensure that handwritten agreements made at court are accurately reflected in the final typed consent order to avoid unnecessary disputes.

  1. Litigation Misconduct Can Be Costly

The judge found that the husband had engaged in a relentless campaign of litigation misconduct, including:

  • Over 850 emails to the court
  • 22+ separate applications
  • Numerous complaints to regulators
  • A 13-page formal complaint filed the morning after the final hearing
  • A 38-page document seeking a General Civil Restraint Order against the wife’s solicitor

The court ruled that:

  • While the solicitor had made mistakes, the husband’s unreasonable and disproportionate approach was the real cause of delay and ballooning costs.
  • The husband was ordered to pay £20,000 towards the wife’s legal fees—despite being a litigant in person.

Practice Point: Courts take a dim view of excessive, disproportionate litigation. Unreasonable conduct can lead to adverse costs orders—even against litigants in person.

  1. Anonymisation of Family Court Judgments Is Not Guaranteed

Most financial remedy judgments are anonymised to protect the privacy of the parties. However, in this case, the court decided to name both parties, citing Peel J’s analysis in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130, which outlines when publication without anonymity is justified.

HHJ Farquhar ruled that:

  • The case involved serious litigation misconduct that warranted public exposure.
  • The husband’s campaign of obstruction was so extreme that the case fell into the “public interest” exception.

Practice Point: Anonymisation in financial remedy cases is not automatic. Where there is serious misconduct, courts may choose to name and shame.

Key Points of Note for Family Law Practitioners

  1. Avoid Drafting Disputes – Get the Order Right
  • Ensure that the typed version of a consent order exactly matches the agreement made in court.
  • If errors are spotted post-hearing, correct them quickly and transparently to avoid unnecessary disputes.
  1. Litigants in Person Are Not Immune from Costs Orders
  • The husband’s self-representation did not protect him from a costs order.
  • Courts will penalise excessive and unreasonable litigation, even when a party acts without a lawyer.
  1. Excessive Applications Will Backfire
  • The husband’s obsession with perceived injustices led to costly, unnecessary litigation.
  • Courts will dismiss repetitive applications and can restrict further filings under a Civil Restraint Order.
  1. Anonymity Is Not Automatic
  • If a party engages in extreme litigation misconduct, courts may refuse anonymity in published judgments.
  • Financial remedy cases are usually anonymised, but bad behaviour can lead to public exposure.

Final Thoughts: A Case That Should Have Ended in 2022

Grace v Grace should have been a routine consent order. Instead, it dragged on for over two years, consumed thousands of hours of court time, and resulted in spiralling costs for both parties.

For practitioners, this case is a masterclass in what can go wrong when disputes over consent orders are not swiftly resolved. It is also a stark warning about the risks of litigation misconduct—and a reminder that, in extreme cases, anonymity is not guaranteed.

16 July 2024

Enforceability of Consent Order Recitals

In the case of BSA v NVT [2020] EWHC 2906 (Fam), the enforceability of consent order recitals came under scrutiny. Here's a summary of the key points and the judgment relating to the enforcement of recitals in a consent order.

Case Background

  • The parties, parents of two children, had a consent order outlining financial provisions, including a housing fund for the mother.
  • The father failed to provide the housing fund, prompting the mother to seek enforcement of the order.
  • The father appealed, challenging the enforcement of recitals in the consent order.

Enforcement and Committals

  • The father argued that breaches of agreements within recitals are not enforceable by the court and fall outside the scope of Schedule 1 proceedings.
  • The court referenced previous cases where recitals were deemed enforceable as part of the court's decision.

Judgment Insights

  • The court cited precedents indicating that recitals can be enforced as if they were part of the formal order.
  • Recitals are enforceable if they align with the court's jurisdiction to make similar orders.
  • In this case, the recital regarding the housing fund fell within the court's power to settle property for the benefit of the child under Schedule 1.
  • The court emphasised that the penal notice was attached to the consent order, indicating enforceability.
  • The December 2018 order, including its recitals, complied with legal requirements and permitted enforcement actions.

Summary

  • Consent order recitals are enforceable in the same manner as formal orders if they align with the court's jurisdiction.
  • The court has discretion to enforce recitals that fall within its power to make similar orders.
  • Proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements ensure enforceability and protect parties' rights in family law matters.

 

york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color

Get in touch for your free consultation

James-Thornton-Family-Law_white

Where innovation meets excellence

Our mission is clear: to redefine the standards of legal representation by seamlessly integrating unparalleled expertise with cutting-edge innovation.

01904 373 111
info@jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk

York Office

Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU

Appointment only

James Thornton Family Law Limited (trading as James Thornton Family Law) is a Company, registered in England and Wales, with Company Number 15610140. Our Registered Office is Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU. Director: James Thornton. We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA number 8007901, and subject to the SRA Standards and Regulations which can be accessed at www.sra.org.uk

Privacy Notice  |  Complaints  |  Terms of Business

Facebook
X (Twitter)
Instagram

©2024 James Thornton Family Law Limited