Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC124A

royal court

(Family Division)

5^th July 2010

Before     :

V. J. Obbard, Registrar, sitting alone.

 

IN THE MATTER OF TT

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO INFERIOR NUMBER

Mr C. G. HIllier (Ecrivain) for the Petitioner.

Mr L. A. Ingram (Ecrivain) for the Respondent.

judgment

the registrar:

1.        The parties were married in February 2007.  They separated in July 2008 and Judicial Separation proceedings commenced in October 2009 after only two years of marriage. 

2.        There is a bitter financial dispute between the parties which centres on their respective interests in the former matrimonial home in St Lawrence.  The dispute began as long ago as November 2005 at which time the parties, who had been living together since 1999, first separated. 

3.        Prior to their marriage, the parties entered into a pre-nuptial agreement, setting out the following:-

Clause 1:	The wife agrees to pay £160,000 into a joint bank account to be used in the renovation of the matrimonial home;
Clause 2:	The husband agrees to subscribe a bond in the sum of £160,000 as a charge on the matrimonial home;
Clause 3:	Sets out the events of default (including breach of the terms of the agreement or of the bond) and the consequences of any default (payment of £160,000 and one half of the matrimonial home by the husband to the wife);
Clause 5:	The wife agrees to pay one-half share of the mortgage payments due on the matrimonial home for as long as the parties remain living there;
Clause 6:	The husband agrees to transfer one half share of the matrimonial home to the wife within three months of marriage; and
Clause 10:	Contains provision in the event the parties' relationship breaks down before their marriage and setting out the methods of calculating the parties' respective entitlements.

4.        The pre-nuptial agreement is therefore a very relevant, if not the most relevant document, in resolving ancillary matters, but it is not the only relevant document as the wife would prefer to argue, because all considerations of Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act must still apply. 

5.        One of the present disagreements is whether or not the £160,000 paid by the wife in accordance with Clause 1 was actually used in the renovation of the matrimonial home. 

6.        The husband is presently dissatisfied with the disclosure process and wishes the case to be referred to the Court.  Since the wife has changed lawyers, he will contend that the wife has been inconsistent in her responses to his questions.  It may be that he thinks the Court should have somehow had greater control of the disclosure process. 

7.        The principle stated reason for his request for the referral is that this case is "complex".  I disagree.  There will indeed be a conflict of evidence over certain matters, including how the £160,000 was spent.  To resolve this, the parties will need to file written evidence, dealing with the matters in dispute and give oral evidence in relation to any matters outstanding.  It is not uncommon for me to be asked to resolve such matters. 

8.        However, I am told that the husband is determined for his case to be heard by the senior court, that he has lost confidence in the Family Court and that he will appeal any decision made by the Registrar.  In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, it seems that I have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Inferior Number.  This stance could result in both parties incurring unnecessary court and legal fees, in what I still think is a relatively uncomplicated matter.  However, it seems that my hands are tied and that the best course is to refer the case for a directions hearing before the Inferior Number without delay. 

9.        Another reason for the referral is that I am not aware of any result to the existing proceedings commenced by order of justice in the Samedi Division by the wife under File Number 2009/49 on 29^th January, 2009.  An answer was filed by the husband on 5^th March, 2009.  There has already been unnecessary duplication in running two court files in different divisions of the Court on substantially the same dispute.  The Court may wish to consider consolidating the two matters or at least to use some of the material already filed.  

10.      The parties must apply to the Bailiff's Judicial Secretary within seven days to arrange a date for a directions hearing before the Inferior Number. 

Authorities

Matrimonial Causes Act.