The recent case of MacQueen v MacQueen [2024] EWFC 400 (B) stands out in family law not just for the egregious dishonesty displayed by the husband but also for the court’s decision to publish the judgment without anonymisation. This highly unusual step sends a clear message about the importance of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and the consequences of defying court orders.

Here, we explore the key points from this case and its lessons for practitioners, particularly on the question of anonymising judgments.

The Facts: A Masterclass in Brazen Non-Disclosure

The case involved financial remedy proceedings following the divorce of Mr. and Mrs. MacQueen. The court was tasked with determining the financial arrangements on divorce. What should have been a straightforward process was derailed by the husband’s persistent dishonesty:

• He failed to provide accurate financial disclosure, omitting substantial income streams from various business ventures (including luxury bulldog sales and roofing contracts).
• He flagrantly ignored court orders to produce documents, including his Form E, P60s, and WhatsApp messages.
• When questioned, his explanations shifted constantly, leaving the court to draw adverse inferences about his finances.

The Judgment: Transparency vs. Anonymity

In a rare move, District Judge Ashby determined that the judgment should be published without anonymising the husband’s identity. While the children’s anonymity was preserved, the husband’s behaviour warranted public scrutiny.

The court’s reasoning was clear:

• Flagrant Non-Compliance: The husband’s “brazen dishonesty” undermined the court process and warranted accountability.
• Public Interest: Highlighting such behaviour serves as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar tactics in financial remedy proceedings.

The court relied on the principle established in R v C (Publication of Judgment) [2015] EWCA Civ 500, which allows judgments to be published when public interest outweighs privacy concerns.

Practical Lessons for Family Lawyers

1. The Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Is Paramount
   • The court described disclosure as the “bedrock” of financial remedy proceedings. Practitioners must emphasise this obligation to clients early and often.
2. Prepare Clients for Consequences of Non-Compliance
   • This case demonstrates that dishonesty and evasion can lead not just to adverse inferences but also to significant reputational damage through public judgments.
3. Evidence Is Key
   • The wife’s evidence—including bank statements, payments, and even social media—was crucial in exposing the husband’s true financial position. Lawyers should ensure clients gather and preserve all relevant documentation.
4. Anonymity Is Not Guaranteed
   • Clients often assume financial remedy cases will remain private. However, as this case shows, poor conduct can lead to public exposure. This is an important discussion to have with clients, especially when dishonesty may be an issue.
5. Costs Orders Are a Risk
   • The court ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs on an indemnity basis, a rare but justified decision given his behaviour. For practitioners, this is a reminder to encourage settlement where possible to avoid unnecessary escalation.

Final Thoughts: Transparency as a Deterrent

MacQueen v MacQueen is a stark reminder that the courts take a dim view of dishonesty and non-compliance. It also demonstrates the increasing willingness of judges to use publication as a tool to hold parties accountable.

For practitioners, the message is clear: ensure your clients understand their obligations, prepare thoroughly, and be ready to address dishonesty head-on. For clients, the lesson is even simpler: tell the truth, comply with court orders, and avoid turning your divorce into a public spectacle.