Vm Petitioner v Rm Respondent
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Williams |
| Judgment Date | 07 January 2015 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO: FAM 210/2014 |
| Date | 07 January 2015 |
Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Williams
This is an Ex Tempore Ruling. It is not intended to read as a formal written ruling. A transcript of the same will be provided to the parties later today.
I have before me the Petitioner wife's, VM's, Summons dated 8 October 2014. The Summons seeks orders for the Respondent husband, RM, to pay child and spousal maintenance totalling $6,660 per month. That order is still sought today.The Summons also includes an application for a costs allowance order in the sum of $10,000. However, that application is no longer being proceeded with as the wife has since obtained legal aid. I hope that the parties will not regard me as being discourteous if I hereafter refer to them as the husband and the wife.
The Summons first came before me on 20 November 2014. As that hearing was squeezed in around lunchtime during a full Family Mention Day list I was unable to then offer sufficient time for a fully argued hearing. Also the husband, despite having had time to do so, had failed to provide any affidavit evidence or documentation to back up the brief oral representations made on his behalf, namely that he had an income of only $10,000 per month and the wife's income from him was not at the level of $6,600 per month and it was not derived by consent from his business entertainment account. With those circumstances in mind I stated:
‘Even having regard to the general approach taken at interim financial hearings, I am not in a position today to make a fully informed determination about the arrangements that each party says existed. What is clear is that I need to make some form of holding order to try to best meet the wife and child's needs until there can be a fuller interim hearing in January, in light of the wife losing her employment, and her resultant current financial difficulties.’
On 20 November 2014 I provided the parties with an immediate decision which was set out in an Ex Tempore Ruling. A transcript of that ruling was provided tothe parties shortly after the hearing. I ordered the husband to make two payments for spousal and child maintenance totalling $4,660 per month by means of a cheque to the wife, the first on 21 November 2014 and the second on 21 December 2014. I adjourned the fuller hearing of the summons until today, with a time estimate of half a day. I also directed:
-
(i) the husband to file and serve his affidavit evidence by or on 11 December 2014;
-
(ii) the wife to file and serve an affidavit in reply, if so advised, by or on 20 December 2014; and
-
(iii) that any directions in relation to the substantive ancillary relief hearing could be given at the end of today's hearing.
At that hearing I reminded myself that 1 had to be very careful to ensure that the husband was not prejudiced by my decision to accede to the wife's request to make orders at that time. When doing so I stated that:
‘Neither party should hold any figure I order today as a yardstick for future hearings. The order will continue only until the January hearing, and it is designed to hold things as best I can until that date.’
I also said:
‘7don't want anyone to read anything into this decision about how I will view and determine the figure at the next interim hearing which will last up to the final ancillary relief hearing. The amount I order in January may be greater or less than the figure ordered today.’
When fixing the sum for interim financial provision I remarked:
‘On the limited evidence before me at this hearing, I find that the appropriate holding figure until January for child and spousal maintenance is $4,660. It is a very rough way of approaching the exercise, but I have in mind that the figure of $2,000 a month for groceries is excessive at this hearing and I'm not going to include in my calculations at this hearing the figures for any credit cards and, regrettably for L, I'm also going to remove the last section claimed in the table at paragraph 13 which is for clothing/pharmacy/entertainment/extras for L, especially sad at a time when Christmas is coming up. The figure is designed to meet the day-to-day living expenses as they appear to me at this stage and is reached in the absence of any evidence filed by the husband.
I believe, on the limited evidence before me, that the husband can afford to make a monthly payment of $4,660 with payments until January to meet the wife and child's needs.’
I also reminded myself that I was entitled to make interim spousal orders even though at the final hearing there may be an issue as to whether this is a case in which ongoing spousal maintenance is appropriate.
The parties, who lived together from 1995, were married in October 2001, separating in late 2005. There are two children of the marriage, D aged 16 who lives with the husband and L aged 15 who lives with the wife. It does not appear that there will be any s. 10 Children Law issues to deal with.
The wife's Petition was issued on 6 October and served on 14 October 2014. The wife filed an Amended Petition on 14 November 2014, the amendment being simply to plead sufficient particulars about the date of the parties” separation. At the November hearing I gave leave to the wife, if it was required, to file that amended petition. I was informed at the November hearing that the Amended Petition would proceed on an unopposed basis. In his Acknowledgment of Service filed on 2 December 2014 the husband indicated that he did not oppose the wife's Amended Petition being proved based on 2 or 5 years separation. This morning both parties invited me to prove the Amended Petition based on five years separation without the need for a formal written application to be made. Having regard to the overriding objective set out in paragraph 1 of the Preamble to the Grand Court Rules, namely for the Court to ‘deal with every cause or matter in a just, expeditious and economical way’ I proved the Amended Petition without the requirement for a formal written application to be made.
The husband has failed to comply with the directions given by the Court at the November hearing. He could have been in no doubt about the case management directions given, as an extract from my typed notebook containing my judgment with the terms of the order made was sent to him by the Court on 24 November 2014.
It appears from emails dated 10 December 2014 and provided to the Court by the husband that Mrs. K. Thompson, who had not been retained but who had assisted the husband at the November hearing, was informing him that she was unable to represent the husband. However I note that her personal assistant stated in an email sent to him by her that he should ‘make every effort to comply with’ the Court's directions. In addition she provided him with a template which gave him guidance about the nature of the documentation he should provide.
She also advised him that if he required more time to file the affidavit that he should consult with the Court to seek an extension. On the same day he wrote to the Court seeking an extension, stating that due to pressure of work he was unable to provide the affidavit by the due date. On 15 December 2014 my personal assistant replied to him asking him about the length of the extension he required. This was followed up by a further email from my personal assistant on 17 December. A reply was received on 17 December 2014 in which the husband stated he had left a message for Mrs. Thompson and he would like to speak to her before he responded. Regrettably the Court has since received no further communication from him and the affidavit has still not been filed.
The husband has today indicated that he believed that Mrs. Thompson had been retained and that he had provided her with certain financial information in documentary form. He stated that the period between the November hearing andtoday was the busiest time of the year for his business, and due to pressure of work he simply had not had the opportunity to comply with the directions.
This of course is not an excuse for...
To continue reading
Request your trial