Family Law Hub

Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14

Appeal against decision to strike out wife's financial remedy application as an abuse of process where there had been significant delay. Appeal allowed.

  • Read the judgment on the Supreme Court website

    The official press summary is published below.

    11 March 2015 


    Wyatt (Appellant) v Vince (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 14 

    On appeal from [2013] EWCA Civ 495 

    JUSTICES: Lady Hale (Deputy President), Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge 


    The appellant, Ms Wyatt, and the respondent, Mr Vince, were married on 18 December 1981 [9]. They had a son, and Mr Vince also treated Ms Wyatt's daughter from a previous relationship as a child of the family. They separated in 1984 [10]. For around 8 years after that, Mr Vince pursued a new-age travelling lifestyle [11]. Ms Wyatt brought up the children in straitened circumstances, and Mr Vince was not in a position to make any substantial financial contribution for them [17]. The couple divorced and their decree absolute was granted on 26 October 1992. Since the court file has apparently been mislaid it is unknown what, if any, order was made at the time regarding financial provision, but the court has no reason to believe that Ms Wyatt's claims were dismissed [14]. Ms Wyatt went on to have two more children. From the late 1990s Mr Vince's green energy business took off [18] and he became a multi-millionaire [7]. In 2001, the couple's son went to live with Mr Vince. Ms Wyatt's financial circumstances continued to be, and remain, very modest [6].  

    In 2011 Ms Wyatt made an application in the divorce proceedings for financial provision in the form of a lump sum. She also applied for interim payments to fund her legal costs [2]. Mr Vince cross-applied for Ms Wyatt's substantive application to be struck out pursuant to Rule 4.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ("the family rules"), which provides: 

    "(1) … the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court – 

    a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the application; 

    b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings …" 

    On 14 December 2012 a deputy High Court judge dismissed Mr Vince's strike-out application and ordered him to make interim periodical payments in respect of legal costs directly to Ms Wyatt's solicitors ("the costs allowance order"). Mr Vince appealed, successfully, to the Court of Appeal to have the deputy judge's orders set aside. The Court of Appeal struck out Ms Wyatt's application for financial provision and ordered her to repay part of the money received under the costs allowance order [2]. She appealed to the Supreme Court.   


    The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal [29] and directs that the wife's application proceed in the Family Division of the High Court [36]. The deputy judge's costs allowance order is restored and the Court of Appeal's repayment order set aside [41]. Lord Wilson (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge agree) gives the judgment.


    The court examines the jurisdiction under Rule 4.4 of the family rules to strike out an ex-spouse's application for a financial order [3]. It can be inferred that the references to "no reasonable grounds" and "abuse of the court's process" in Rule 4.4 are intended to bear the same meaning as the equivalently worded strike-out provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules ("the civil rules") [23]. The civil rules also confer upon the court a further power to give summary judgment on the basis that the claimant or defendant has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial [24]. However, there is no equivalent power of summary judgment in the family rules [25]. This omission is deliberate. When an ex-spouse applies for a financial order, the court has a duty under section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ("the 1973 Act") to determine that application having regard to all the circumstances, including the eight matters set out in subsection (2); this assessment is not apt for summary determination. The Court of Appeal was therefore wrong to insinuate a test analogous to summary judgment into the family rules. Both limbs of Rule 4.4 should be construed without reference to real prospects of success. An application has "no reasonable grounds" for the purposes of Rule 4.4(1)(a) only if it is not legally recognisable, e.g. because there has already been a final determination of the proceedings or because the applicant has remarried. Neither should an application be viewed as an "abuse of process" falling within Rule 4.4(1)(b) solely on the basis that it has no real prospect of success [27]. Ms Wyatt's application is legally recognisable and is not an abuse of process [28] and her appeal against the strike-out therefore succeeds [29].  

    Lord Wilson identifies the issues in the application for the purpose of efficient future case management [29]. Ms Wyatt faces formidable difficulties in seeking to establish that a financial order should be made in her favour, including the short duration of the marriage and the long delay since then [30-31]. It is not clear whether she will be able to sustain her claim on the basis of need generated by her relationship with Mr Vince [33]. However, section 25(2)(f) of the 1973 Act obliges the court to have regard to "the contributions which each of the parties has made … to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family". Ms Wyatt will no doubt rely on her much greater contribution to the upbringing of the couple's children over many years [34], a factor which may justify a financial order for a comparatively modest sum [36].  

    The court also considers the costs allowance order [3]. Mr Vince argued that even if Ms Wyatt's application were not to be struck out, the deputy judge had been wrong to make the costs allowance order [37]. The threshold test for making such an order was whether Ms Wyatt could reasonably secure legal services by any other means [39]. Given that it would be unreasonable to expect her solicitors to continue to act without payment until the determination of her substantive application (as contended by Mr Vince), this test was satisfied [40].  

    References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment 


    This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court's decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at:

Judgment, published: 11/03/2015


See also

  • Appeal against decision to strike out wife's financial remedy application as an abuse of process where there had been significant delay. Case note, 21/04/2015, members only

Items referring to this

  • In a tweet: H’s FR application (brought 24 years after divorce) was dismissed Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
  • Husband's application for financial provision after being divorced for 24 years failed. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Ex-wife's argument that the ex-husband's claim for financial provision 24 years after their divorce should be struck out as an abuse of process was rejected. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • In a tweet: Legal costs funding order may be made for costs already incurred Case note, 21/09/2016, members only
  • The parties had divorced in 2005 and the wife received £150,000 from the husband. She issued a Form A in 2013 and was subsequently awarded £1.6m as a lump sum plus a share of the husband's pensions. The husband appealed on the basis that the parties had reached a full and final settlement of their financial affairs in 2005. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 25/01/2017, free
  • Hague proceedings were withdrawn after the parties were able to agree the terms of a consent order, such that there was no utility in continuing with the Hague proceedings. Judgment, 10/03/2016, free
  • Nicholas Chapman and James Pullen of 29 Bedford Row review the most important cases of 2015. Webcast, 12/02/2016, members only
  • Application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 Case note, 17/03/2016, members only
  • Rehearing of a high value financial remedy case, the previous final order of 1st June 2010 having been set aside in July 2015 because of the husband's non-disclosure in respect of his interest in two trusts. Judgment, 25/11/2016, free
  • Applications by the father of a child, who was involved in private law proceedings, for committal orders against two members of the Cafcass team and the mother's solicitor for what he perceived to be their respective failings and breaches of court orders. Applications refused. Judgment, 21/08/2015, free
  • Judgment on preliminary issues in Schedule 1 proceedings concerning father's application to strike out and mother's application for legal services funding order. Both applications failed. Case note, 09/09/2016, members only
  • Appeal against a decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • In a tweet: Use case management powers to direct abbreviated hearing and consider applications without merit Case note, 07/11/2016, members only
  • Consent order drawn up, after which the wife discovered that the value of the shares in question were far in excess of the figure prepared for the hearing. Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal against a refusal by the judge to set aside the order. Wife's appeal allowed after the Supreme Court held that the High Court judge would not have made the order he did, when he did, in the absence of husband's fraud, and the consent order should have been set aside. He had also been wrong to deprive the wife of a full and fair hearing of her claims by re-making his decision at the hearing of the application on the basis of the evidence then before him. Judgment, 14/10/2015, free
  • Wife was applying to have the husband's application to vary the terms of a maintenance order, which included maintenance to be paid after her re-marriage, struck out on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The application was refused. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • In a tweet: Family Court sets aside financial orders made 20 years after parties' separation Case note, 10/10/2016, members only
  • Appeal by husband in financial remedy proceedings against decision that the matrimonial assets should be shared equally on the grounds that he had made a special contribution. Appeal dismissed as the trial judge could not be found to be wrong. Judgment, 13/04/2017, free
  • In a tweet: Consent order approved providing W with a lump sum of £300K on a clean break basis Case note, 20/09/2016, members only
  • Parties had reached agreement that the wife be paid a lump sum of £300,000. The issue here was whether the details of the settlement could be made public and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs relating to a Dean summons which was brought by her solicitors but then abandoned after the husband relented on the publicity issue. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • Philip Cayford QC and Simon Calhaem of 29 Bedford Row, who represented Mrs Wyatt in the Supreme Court, are joined by members of the Mills & Reeve family law team to review and discuss the issues raised by the case and the impact of the Law Lords decision on practice. Webcast, 18/03/2015, members only

Published: 11/03/2015


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item