In MAP v RAP [2013] EWHC 4784 (Fam), Mostyn J found that a lack of capacity could constitute a ground to set aside a consent order.
The judgment was the first of its kind, as lack of capacity had not previously featured as a ground for setting aside a consent order.
The wife sought permission to appeal the consent order out of time on the basis that she lacked mental capacity at the time it was ‘agreed’, as she had been suffering from bipolar affective disorder. She had been representing herself at the time the consent order was entered into and the agreement on which the consent order had been based was made shortly before she was detained under the Mental Health Act.
The consent order, it was said, provided the husband with approximately 80% of the assets, including a considerable portion derived from the wife’s inheritance from her mother. Additionally, the order provided for a ‘clean break’, meaning the wife was left with a modest pension and no entitlement to the husband’s future earnings or pension.
Mostyn J expressed his surprise that no solicitor alerted the court to the wife’s mental capacity and found that her case that she lacked mental capacity was strongly arguable. However, rather than granting permission to appeal, he directed that the issue be heard at first instance (under rule 4.1(6) of the FPR, which grants the court power to vary or revoke an order).
This decision predates the introduction of FPR 9.9A and Practice Direction 9A. In the more recent case of BF v LE [2023] EWHC 2009, Lieven J noted that lack of capacity does not come within paragraph 13.5 of Practice Direction 9A. She held that a hearing which proceeds in circumstances where one party lacks capacity is an error of law and falls under the right of appeal, not the power to set aside.
If you believe you lacked capacity when agreeing to your consent order, contact Vardags today for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.
The information on this website is intended as a guide and does not constitute legal advice. Vardags do not accept liability for any errors in the information on this website, nor any losses stemming from reliance upon the statements made herein. All articles and pages aim to reflect the legal position at time they were published, and may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent developments in the law. Should you require specialist advice, tailored to your situation, please see how Vardags can help you.
Vardags Limited is a limited company trading as Vardags, Company No 7199468, registered in England and Wales, having its registered office at 10 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7NG. Vardags is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number 535955). Its VAT number is 99 001 7230.
Vardags uses the term ‘Partner’ as a professional title only, to describe a Senior Solicitor, Employee or Consultant with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications (whether legally qualified or otherwise) to merit the title. Our Partners are not partners in the legal sense. They are not liable for the debts, liabilities or obligations of Vardags Limited. Similarly, the term ’Director’ is a professional title only, to describe a non-legally qualified employee or consultant of Vardags with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications to merit the title. It does not necessarily imply that the relevant individual is a director of Vardags Limited.
A list of the directors of Vardags Limited and a list of the names of those using the title of ’Director’ and ’Partner’ together with their official status is available for inspection at Vardags’ registered office.