Financial remedy proceedings depend heavily upon both parties giving full and frank financial disclosure and complying with court directions. Difficulties arise when one party decides that they will not engage: they fail to provide Form E, ignore questionnaires, breach disclosure orders, fail to attend hearings or simply stop responding.
That behaviour can cause delay and additional expense, but it does not give the defaulting party a veto over the proceedings. The Family Court has extensive case management powers and, where necessary, can impose sanctions, draw adverse inferences, make costs orders and ultimately determine the financial claims in the absence of the person who has refused to participate.
Establish what sort of non-engagement you are dealing with
There is an important distinction between somebody who is struggling to participate and somebody who is deliberately refusing to do so. Before imposing serious sanctions, the court will want to know that the other party knows about the proceedings, has received the relevant orders and has been given a proper opportunity to comply.
Vulnerability and effective participation also need to be addressed. A party who has genuine difficulty participating because of health, disability, domestic abuse or some other relevant circumstance may require participation directions rather than sanctions. The court must act fairly. Once reasonable steps have been taken to enable participation, however, a party cannot ordinarily bring the proceedings to a standstill simply by refusing to engage.
The recent decision in TH v AR & Anor (No. 2: Financial Remedies) [2026] EWFC 262 illustrates this distinction. The court took considerable steps to ensure that the non-attending party had an opportunity to participate remotely and considered her communications carefully. Having done so, it concluded that her continuing non-engagement formed part of a wider pattern of non-cooperation and refused to adjourn the final hearing.
Failure to provide Form E or financial disclosure
Under FPR 9.14, in ordinary financial remedy proceedings each party must exchange and file their financial statement not less than 35 days before the First Appointment. Fourteen days before that hearing, each party must also file and serve, amongst other documents, a questionnaire identifying the further information and documents sought.
If one party fails to provide Form E, the sensible response is generally to raise the breach promptly and seek a clear direction requiring compliance by a short specified date. Allowing repeated informal extensions can simply turn one missed deadline into months of delay.
At the First Appointment the court has power to determine what questions must be answered and what documents must be produced. More generally, FPR 4.1 gives the court broad case management powers, including powers to order disclosure, shorten the time for compliance and specify the consequences of failing to obey an order.
Unless orders and debarring orders
Where ordinary directions have already been ignored, it may be appropriate to seek an unless order. The point of an unless order is that the order itself specifies the sanction which follows if the required step is not completed by the deadline.
Under FPR 4.5, a sanction imposed for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order takes effect unless the defaulting party obtains relief from it. An application for relief from sanctions falls to be considered under FPR 4.6, which requires the court to consider all the circumstances, including whether the breach was intentional, whether there is a good explanation, the history of compliance and the effect upon both parties.
In a sufficiently serious case the sanction may prevent, or debar, a party from advancing particular evidence or arguments. In TH v AR, the wife was debarred from filing evidence on several issues after failing to comply with previous directions. Her father, who had been joined to the proceedings, was also debarred from filing a defence and evidence concerning disputed beneficial ownership. Neither applied for relief from sanctions.
Debarment is a powerful remedy, but it does not mean that the compliant party automatically receives whatever order they ask for. The court remains required to carry out its statutory exercise under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to reach an outcome justified by the evidence. That point was expressly recognised in TH v AR.
Obtaining information without the other party’s cooperation
Non-engagement does not necessarily mean that the financial picture cannot be established. Bank statements, company records, pension information, property documents and other independent material may provide evidence of resources even where a party refuses to supply it personally.
Where appropriate, consideration can be given to an application for disclosure against a non-party. FPR 21.2 permits the court, where the relevant statutory jurisdiction is available, to order disclosure by a person who is not a party where disclosure is necessary in order fairly to dispose of the proceedings or to save costs. The application must be supported by evidence and should identify the documents or classes of documents sought with proper precision.
HJ v QY [2026] EWFC 245 (B) provides a recent practical example. There had been 15 listed court appearances and repeated failures by the husband to provide disclosure or engage properly. The wife obtained third-party disclosure from banks, the DVLA and elsewhere, enabling her to build an evidential picture despite the husband’s refusal to cooperate. The husband did not attend the final hearing and the court ultimately ordered him to pay a lump sum of £110,000.
Adverse inferences
A party who refuses to disclose their financial position takes a considerable risk. The court is not required to assume that missing information would have assisted the person who has withheld it.
The leading Court of Appeal authority remains Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482. The court should ordinarily seek to determine the extent of the non-disclosing party’s resources but may draw adverse inferences justified by the nature and extent of the non-disclosure. Those inferences must be properly founded and reasonable; the court cannot simply speculate. Equally, a party should not obtain a more favourable result because their own misconduct has made precise calculation impossible.
Moher confirms that the judge does not invariably have to identify a precise figure or even a bracket for undisclosed wealth. Where the default itself makes quantification impossible, the court can in an appropriate case infer from the available evidence and inherent probabilities that sufficient resources exist to justify the award being considered.
That principle was applied in HJ v QY. Third-party banking material, evidence concerning vehicles and the husband’s lifestyle were inconsistent with his asserted financial position. The court was entitled to consider that material when deciding what inferences could properly be drawn about his true resources.
Costs
The usual starting point in financial remedy proceedings is that each party bears their own costs. That is not an absolute rule. Under FPR 28.3, the court can make a costs order because of a party’s litigation conduct, and expressly considers matters including failure to comply with the rules, practice directions or court orders and the manner in which a party has pursued or responded to the proceedings.
Persistent failure to disclose, repeated breaches of orders, unnecessary hearings and refusing reasonably to engage can therefore have costs consequences. Where a costs order is going to be sought, it should ordinarily be flagged openly before the hearing and the appropriate schedule of costs should be available. Practice Direction 28A makes clear that the court takes a broad view of litigation conduct for these purposes.
Proceeding to a final hearing without the other party
Eventually there comes a point at which further adjournments achieve nothing. FPR 27.4 permits the court to proceed where an applicant attends but a respondent does not, provided the absent respondent has had reasonable notice and the circumstances justify proceeding in their absence.
TH v AR is a clear recent example. After considering whether further steps were required to facilitate participation, the court was satisfied that both respondents had reasonable notice of the final hearing and that the circumstances justified proceeding without them. The financial remedy application was therefore determined notwithstanding their absence.
A practical approach
The compliant party should resist being drawn into endless correspondence or repeated informal extensions. Identify precisely what is outstanding, obtain an order containing an unambiguous deadline and, if that order is breached, return to court promptly for an effective sanction.
It is also important to build the evidential case rather than simply complain about the other party’s conduct. Identify what documents exist, what information can legitimately be obtained from third parties, what inconsistencies appear between the disclosed case and the known lifestyle and precisely what inference the court is being invited to draw.
Where the history demonstrates deliberate and persistent obstruction, the application to the court should be equally focused: enforce existing disclosure obligations, seek an unless or debarring order where justified, obtain targeted third-party evidence, preserve the claim for costs and ask for the case to remain listed for determination.
A party cannot ordinarily avoid a financial remedy order merely by refusing to answer correspondence, withholding disclosure or failing to attend court. The process may become more difficult and more expensive, but the Family Court has the tools necessary to prevent deliberate non-engagement from defeating the proceedings.
For assistance in this area of law, contact clerks@anvilchambers.co.uk