Locations we serve
Locations we serve
Locations we serve
Other Services
020 7404 9390
Available 24 hours

Y v Z

Non-disclosure is increasingly an issue in ancillary proceedings and it is often down to judicial discretion to establish whether or not it is in the public interest to report on and punish such dishonesty.

Vardags represented the father defending an application by the mother to disclose to the police and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the fact that the father had lied in statements and on oath in proceedings. The mother also applied for the judgement not to be anonymised.

The mother and father had enjoyed a brief relationship which resulted in one child, a son named John. The mother applied to the court for the father to provide her with financial support for their child, an application known as a Schedule 1 case. Relations between the mother and the father were strained and very bitter and a number of applications and appeals were made to the court, spanning a number of years.

In the background to these proceedings, the mother instructed a journalist to research the fathers true financial position. It materialised that in the course of the Schedule 1 proceedings, the father had failed to disclose proceeds of sale amounting to £111,000. The journalist published these findings and snippets from the transcripts of the hearings in which the father failed to disclose this sum of money. Upon discovering the fathers untruth, the court increased the lump sum the father had to pay the mother for the childs benefit from £45,000 (which had been reduced from £85,000 on appeal) to £80,000. The mother was also prevented, by way of injunction, from disclosing the information.

The father worked in the financial services sector and the mother made an application to the court against an injunction forbidding the disclosure of information and documents in the Schedule 1 proceedings. Her aim in making the application was that she wished to report the father to the CPS and the Financial Conduct Authority for lying in court.

The mother argued that it was in the public interest for the father to be prosecuted for his perjury, and that, by virtue of his lies, the father had lost any right to confidentiality. The mother also claimed that the injunction breached her right to free speech.

The fathers case was that such an application would spell his financial ruin as he had no experience outside of the financial sector. This is turn would render the mothers Schedule 1 applications pointless as he would have no means to support their son. In addition, he had apologised for his untruth and argued that confidentiality in financial proceedings was necessary to encourage frankness in family proceedings.

In coming to a decision on whether the injunction should be lifted, Mr Justice Bodey had to exercise a careful balancing act between the rights and interests of the parties between themselves and the public interest. Mr Justice Bodey acknowledged that the mother was overlooking the risk to her and her childs budget should the fathers lies be disclosed to the police and the FCA. He thought this was evidence of the mothers preoccupation with having her estranged husband punished. So far as the public interest was concerned, Mr Justice Bodey found that this was a more difficult balance to strike as it was clear there was merit in the argument that there should be sanctions for lying and disincentives for non-disclosure.

The judge was also very critical that the father wanted to avoid paying a lump sum to the mother which would have benefited his child. However his lie had to be put in the context of a very bitter and acrimonious relationship. Whilst he did not condone the fathers behaviour, Mr Justice Bodey considered that it would be disproportionate to allow the mothers application.

The mother had also requested that the judgement be published without being anonymised. Mr Justice Bodey refused her application as it would undermine the injunction and in his view the welfare of the child.

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.


Ayesha Vardag

Founder & President Ayesha Vardag Founder & President Divorce & Family
“Ayesha Vardag - Britain's top divorce lawyer.” 
The Telegraph

Stephen Bence

Chief Executive Officer Stephen Bence Vardags CEO
“Dr Stephen Bence is a financial genius.” 
Lewis Marks KC

David Lister

Senior Partner - Divorce & Family David Lister
“Brilliant with a real spark which clients love” 
Legal 500
This site uses cookies. Find out more. Continued use of this site is deemed as consent.   CLOSE ✖