The case of Ma v Roux [2024] EWHC 1917 marks a pivotal shift in the handling of financial remedy orders, focusing on whether courts can strike out applications to set aside financial remedies in family law. This case involved an appeal on whether the court had the power to summarily dismiss or strike out an application to set aside a consent order based on alleged non-disclosure during financial remedy proceedings.

The Key Issue: Can Courts Strike Out Financial Remedy Set-Aside Applications?

Historically, courts have been reluctant to strike out applications in family law cases, particularly financial remedy applications, due to the need for courts to assess all circumstances under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, with the introduction of Rule 9.9A of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR), there is now a more structured approach to applications to set aside financial remedy orders.

In Ma v Roux, the husband argued that his ex-wife had received substantial financial support from her family that she did not disclose at the time of their financial remedy settlement. He sought to set aside the original consent order on the basis of non-disclosure. The wife sought to strike out this application, leading to the key question: can the court strike out such applications?

The Judgment: A New Test for Striking Out Applications

Mr Justice Francis ruled that courts do have the power to strike out or summarily dismiss applications to set aside financial remedy orders under FPR 9.9A. The judge determined that the court’s power to strike out is broader when dealing with applications to set aside financial remedies compared to applications for final financial orders. The key principles established in the judgment were:

1. Application of FPR 9.9A and PD 9A: These provisions introduce a clearer framework for courts to follow when considering whether to set aside a financial remedy order. The court confirmed that Rule 9.9A permits the court to strike out an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
2. Real Prospects of Success: In determining whether to strike out an application, the court can consider whether the application has a realistic chance of success. This is a significant departure from the approach in cases like Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14, where courts were more limited in dismissing applications outright.
3. Case Management Powers: Courts retain wide case management powers under PD 9A, para 13.8, which includes the ability to summarily dismiss applications that are clearly unfounded or have no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The judge emphasised that this power must be exercised carefully, balancing the need for fairness against the goal of avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Why This Case is of Interest

The ruling in Ma v Roux is particularly important for several reasons:

1. Streamlining Financial Remedy Proceedings: The ability to strike out applications that are unlikely to succeed helps reduce the burden on courts and litigants. It discourages unmeritorious claims from clogging up the system, making financial remedy cases more efficient.
2. Impact of Non-Disclosure Claims: This case sheds light on how courts approach non-disclosure allegations post-settlement. While non-disclosure is a serious issue, the case illustrates that not every allegation will warrant a full rehearing of the financial remedy application.
3. The Evolution of Family Law: Ma v Roux demonstrates a shift in family law towards more active case management. The decision balances the protection of parties’ rights to a fair hearing with the need to prevent misuse of court resources.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Power to Strike Out: Practitioners should be aware that the court now has a clear ability to strike out unmeritorious applications to set aside financial remedies. This can help manage clients’ expectations when considering whether to challenge a settlement.
2. Burden of Proof in Non-Disclosure: Allegations of non-disclosure must be supported by evidence that shows the outcome of the financial remedy would have been different if the disclosure had been made. Mere suspicion or disappointment after a settlement is insufficient.
3. Strategic Use of Rule 9.9A: For practitioners representing clients who wish to set aside a financial remedy order, it is critical to assess the strength of the case early on. Weak claims may be dismissed summarily, leading to additional costs and wasted time.
4. Case Management Flexibility: Family law practitioners should take note of the increased flexibility courts now have in managing financial remedy cases. Applications to set aside a financial remedy order will be scrutinised closely, and the court will not hesitate to strike out applications that are unlikely to succeed.

Conclusion

The decision in Ma v Roux reinforces the courts' commitment to efficiency in financial remedy cases while ensuring that applications with merit are fully considered. It highlights the importance of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and serves as a reminder to practitioners about the evolving landscape of family law. With the power to strike out now clarified, family law cases may see a reduction in frivolous or vexatious applications, streamlining the resolution of financial disputes post-divorce.

This judgment is set to impact how financial remedy cases are handled, offering new strategies for both challenging and defending financial remedy orders in family law.