No. FD07D02865 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVJSION Royal Courts of Justice Monday. 28m September 2009 Before: MRS. ruSTICE PARKER BE-.TWEEN: MICHELLE DANIQUE YOUNG Applicant -andSCOT GORDON YOUNG Respondent Transcribed by BEWRLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Oficial Shorthand Writers and Tape TranscribersLane, London l{C2A lHP Quatity iout", Quality Court, Chancery Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 info@ eve r I eY n u n ne rY. c o m MR. D. BALCOMBE OC (instructed by PCB Litigation) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR. p. MARSHALL (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. JUDGMENT (As approved by the Judge) ID MRS. JUSTICE PARKER: I I made an order on 29th June 2009 in the ancillary relief proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Young. The husband has been long in breach of orders to provide information. The wife says that this is deliberate and is intended to frustrate the course of the inquiry to be undertaken by the court. 2 The very brief background is that the husband, who professed to be and was plainly a man of immense wealth in the relatively near past, now claims that he has nothing left. He has provided some answers to enquiries, but they are far from adequate to explain the disappearance of these funds and assets and his business dealings generally. 3 On 29th June I found that the husband was in deliberate, that is wilful, default of orders made for disclosure of information and made an order for six months' imprisonment, suspended until today, and made a separate order whereby I directed the husband to file replies to a more recent questionnaire subsequent to the committal proceedings, and to provide an affidavit dealing with his business activities between 2001 and 2009. All that disclosure was to be made by 7th September 2009. The husband was then in person, having been advised by a solicitor. 4 The hearing date for the review of the disclosure and for the suspended order to be considered was set for today, 28th September 2009. I am in no doubt whatsoever that the husband had plainly in mind what his obligations were and that he had to produce the informatiron by 7th September 2009, and that the next court date was )8s September 2009. There has been no compliance whatsoever with the order that I made, not even an attempt at compliance. 5 On 28th August 2009 the husband was admified to hospital under care of Dr. CO. Dr, CO has not provided a diagnosis. Dr. CO says in his brief letter dated 3 September 2009 that the basis of the husband's admission was compulsory but short-term, but that he thought when he saw the husband subsequent to admission that the husband was unable to give instructions at that stage. The husband was discharged on 1Oth September 2009. According to two letters I have seen from a junioidoctor, he is still receiving outpatient treatment under the care of the Community Mental Health Team. 6 The husband has been refused public funding, perhaps inevitably as a result of the information that I had before me on the last occasion, but he now says that he has obtained a loan of f,50,000 from a friend and he has recently and since his discharge from hospital instructed the well-known specialist family practitioners, Pavne Hicks Beach . BEVERLEYFNUNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAn-D WRITERS r1 Dr. CO sent his letter dated 3rd September to the wife's new solicitors, then briefly instructed, she having changed her representation. That letter was then sent on 14th September by those solicitors to the solicitors who are presently representing the wife, PCB litigation. Dr. CO's letter, as I say, described the fact of the husband's admission, but gave no other information as to his condition. Scepticism was immediately expressed by PCB Litigation on behalf of the wife as to whether this was a ploy by the husband, and whether he was presenting a false position as to his mental health in order to excuse himself from compliance. In the light of the history I can see why they would have that concern. There was an exchange of solicitors' correspondence as to whether the husband should undergo an examination by an independent expert. The husband said that he was prepared to be examined. The wife wanted there to be a sole instruction, by her expert. The husband said that there should be a joint instruction. Another issue arose as to whether the husband's medical records should be produced and in fact they were requested from 2005. The parties could not agree whether a joint or sole expert should be instructed and whether it was necessary to provide medical records. No one most surprisingly approached Dr. CO in order to get more information as to the circumstances of the admission, nor to ask: What was the diagnosis? What was the prognosis? What was the relevance of the hospital admission to the default in answering the questionnaires between 29th June and 28th August? The reticence in approaching Dr. CO (a reticence which has been both sides) has not been helpful to the resolution of the issues before "ppur"ttion me. The husband through his counsel has expressed concern as to personal details in respect of his health being revealed, but in the light of these cornmittal proieedings it is inevitable that I deal openly with this. The husband accepts that ih.t" are no grounds for holding the hearing in private or in imposing reporting in private or in open court proceedings. I heard this case in restrictionr "lth"r public and a number of membe.r olthr Press have been present.plhe parties and II ihe public are entitled to know the reasons for my decision. 10 The husband is seeking fuither time to answer the questionnaires. He asked six weeks to provide the information which was due to be provided by 7th ft41t'lr4 for September last and then for another four weeks to answer another reasonably substantial questionnaire which was submitted on 24th September, so for l0 weeks in total. His reason for asking for fuither time, and asking me accordingly not to determine whether or not I should activate the sentence of imprisonment, is that his health problems have precluded him answering the questionnaire. 11 As I have said, the wife is extremely suspicious that this is part of the husband's campaign to avoid disclosure and to avoid making provision for her and their BEVERLEY FNI,JIINERY & CO OFFICIAL SHORTTIAND T'RITERS II children. She also points to the fact that there are proceedings for possession against her which she attributes to the husband who she says is in reality in control of the property in which she lives, and to his failure to make other financial provision for the family. T2 The wife has asked for an immediate order of seven days' imprisonment as an inducement to comply. She also asks for the husband to answer the outstanding 3rd June 2009 questionnaire within seven days. In the altemative, if I am not prepared to activate the sentence of imprisonment, or if I consider that I should adjourn the question of whether I should do so and should give the husband further time, she asks for an order that the husband should provide all outstanding information within 14 days. t3 I am of course suspicious that the husband is procrastinating and seeking to avoid answering. However, I have a letter from a consultant psychiatrist and subsequent letters from a junior doctor which establish a reasonable possibility that the husband has been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. I do not know whether it is possible for him to hoodwink psychiatrists and I am certainly not prepared to proceed on the assumption that he has done so. T4 I bear in mind, however, that there may be a combination of factors operative here. It may be that the husband has been most unwilling to provide the wife with this information, but it may be that the mental health issues, if genuine, have also yl impinged upon the timetable which I set up last Junell record that I h1Y". ng information as to what the husband was doing between 29th June and 28th August l' when he was admitted to hospital, and I entirely accept that there is no evidence that the husband was doing anything substantial in order to collate this information and to provide it to the wife and her solicitors and to the court. l5 However, I have to bear in mind that@he husband has been disabled from Cly"'*" answering due to his health then thisrc-gyr[$,be relevantlo earlier non-compliance] It may;ust Ue rhat there was a leadtltffiis admission to hospital which is relevant to his failure to provide the information. o+cfuJ'n ^ 16 Pursuant to the 2001 Practice Direction which applies to committal proceedings within the family jurisdiction, I also have to have regard to the HupaaRighs Act 2000. It seems tome that it would 6ma mn', notw.ithstanding thQqlagra$ breaches which have so far taken plad Ai-d6. @gf@ noncomplianlttriih the court's orders at this point, immediately to activate the sentence of imprisonment. t7 I also bear in rnind that the aim of these proceedings is to get the husband to comply with the requirement that he disclose a full and frank picture of his financial affairs. The best chance of success is to permit a short focused postponement of the period of suspension. It seems to me appropriate, and indeed BEVERLEYTNUNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTTIAND WRITERS I3 the wife asks for this, that there should be, first of all, a proper medical report from Dr. CO who was the admitting and treating psychiatrist who dealt with the husband as to precisely those issues as to the husband's mental health which bear on these proceedings. Mr. Balcombe points out that it is the usual practice for a psychiatrist when discharging a patient to write a discharge letter to the patient's GP, and this is likely to be the case here. l8 The wife has asked for a sole instruction of another doctor, Dr CR, in order to provide a second opinion if the information first to be provided from Dr CO is not iufficient to answer any question which she has. The husband is prepared to see Dr. CR. He is prepared to give authority to Dr CR to speak to his treating doctor Dr CO, and to attend a consultation or consultations with or examination by Dr. CR. He agrees that he will bear the costs of such investigation and report. His medical notes from lst June 2O0g to date and any other medical notes relevant to his psychiatric condition should be disclosed to the expert who is to report. I do notihink it appropriate that such instruction should be a sole instruction. The usual practice in this Division is for a joint instruction to take place. If it is to be justification for the husband to bear a joini instruction, this in itself would provide the costs. I have not had to give consideration as to whether the husband should have had to bear the costs of a sole instruction by the wife. 19 Iam prepared to adjourn consideration of the sentence of imprisonment whilst r6l;-ihdortunity is given to the husband now with the benefit of his legal advice \egrr/vide answers to the outstanding information' 20 A considerable amount of time has been taken up this aftemoon with a debategoas to.the precise time-scale. One of the problems is, first of all, that I am due to It on circuit on 23rd November and I want to bring this matter back before then. is obviously a case where I should adjourn this matter part heard. It .[\ my in stage this at judge this with deal to appropriat" itt fot another i@) view' 2l The second problem is that the wife has no way of supporting herself and her children. Her home is under threat and she wants to have her application for which has been maintenance pending suit to be heard as soon as possible. A date offered is 27t'h Nove]nber, a date which I think should be taken up. It is possible for the matter to come back before me on 13th November 2009 which is six weeks and four daYs from todaY. atrracted by the idea that I shoutd accelerate the whole of the time-scale, ,rtt to the 14 duyt ptoposed by Mr. Balcombe, but to a period of sixweeks which would allow the matter to come back before me with hopefully all the information available. I have been assured by Mr. Marshall that this is simply unrealistic and, as he puts it, setting the husband up to fail. However, the husband at Mr. Balcombe's invitation has been prepared on oath to commit himself to 22 I was initially BEVERLEYFNIJNNERY&CO OTFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS Iq undertake to provide the answers to the questionnaires of 2008 and the 3rd June 2009 questionnaire, that latter being a fairly short document, within six weeks from today. He says that he cannot commit himself to anything under a l0-week estimate in relation to the information which is required as a result of the 24th September questionnaire. 23 After some considerable debate in my own mind as to the way forward, I have come to the conclusion that the right order is to say that he must answer the information outstanding as under my 2gthJune order by the date which is six weeks from today, 9th November 2009, that will be by 4 pm, with a view to bringing this matter back on 13th November. 24 So far as the information required by the 24th September 2009 document is concemed, he must answer that within 10 weeks of today. I am going to attach a penal notice to that order, but I am not going to make it the subject of the 13th Ntvember hearing, nor indeed the subject of the suspended committal order. 25 the seems to me that a very considerable degree of light will be shed upon r/ husband's true intentions, and what I should do as a result of these committal " It proceedings and my suspended order, by what happens in respect of the information whichis stiil outstanding as from 7th September. As I say, the time-scale of six weeks came from Mr. Marshall and his team, and the husband has been prepared to sign up to that time-scale and is prepared to give an undertaking in ..rp.ct thereof. He is prepared to and must give an undertaking to provide information in respect of the 24th September questionnaire a-date which i do not have immediatelyto hand but with which counsel can provide me. be 26 I also am going to order that the husband's UK bank account details must produced irittri" three weeks of today, and that any question which relates to material emanating from the tax authorities which relates to income tax or CGT should be produced within four weeks of today. I will debate with counsel in due course whether there it should be a condition of the suspended committal order that he provides that information within that timescale or whether that is best left by confining those conditions to the provision of the information specifically required byhy previous order, because it will be clear by l3th November precisely what the husband's attitude to disclosure is' asks the husband to produce within 7 days the information required by paragraph I I of the order made by Moylan J. on lgth June 2007. That is the information as to where the husband has obtained the funds by which he has provided for himself, and by way of payment for the applicant (whilst he was making it), and other sums withdrawn by him. Those questions are also posed in the 3rd June questionnaire. I have decided not to order that he should provide that information within 7 days,He must deal with that in answering the 3rd June 27 Mr. Balcombe BEVERLEYFNUNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTH.AND WRITERS t5 questionnaire. I do not want it to be said that I have distracted the husband and his legal team from the exercise of answering these questionnaires in an orderly and constructive manner by requiring him to concentrate on that matter in isolation. 28 I am going to make an order that the husband attends the next hearing on l3th November. I am going by consent to continue the order whereby the husband's passport continues to be retained by the tipstaff. Whether it is a separate order or whether it is to be part of the order which emanates from my overall decision in these proceedings, it will be recorded that that order is made by consent. 29 I am going to take undertakings from the husband to provide answers to the two earlier questionnaires, of October 2008 and June 2009 within six weeks. It will be recorded on the face ofthe order that the consequences ofbreach have been explained to the husband. I accept lrrlr. Balcombe's point that it is important, where there is a possibility, so Mr. Balcombe says, that the husband may once again withdraw frorn the process, that there should be a personal commitment by him as well as a commitment by his solicitors. 30 Mr. McGuirk who is the husband's extremely experienced solicitor agrees (I do not think it is appropriate to ask him to undertake) to provide updates to the wife's solicitor, the frequency of which I will discuss with counsel, confirming that the husband is continuing to instruct him. That agreement to disclose will not of course require him to disclose any matters which are privileged as between him and his client. has raised a number of points in his response to the hearing today in which he says that the order that I made was defective in a number of respects, and that theiefore I should not in any event commit the husband because of the 3l Mr. Marshall procedural objections to the committal. 32 I have not had to decide on these points, bearing in mind the decision which I have taken on the merits, but I record that I have been referred by both counsel to the case of Ni cholls v. Nicholls .l997l I FLR 649 and the court's power to dispense with procedural requirements where the interests ofjustice require, contempt of course being a serious matter not only to the applicant but also to the court. When I asked Mr. Marshall what injustice had been done to his client by these alleged defects, the only example which he gave was that he said that because the husband had not been served with the order he had been confused in some way as to whether or not this hearing was to take place on 7th September or whether he was to provide the information by 7th, and whether this hearing was taking place today on 28th September at all. I have already said that I am quite satisfied from my own memory of the hearing that the husband understood completely what it was I intended to provide. BEVERLEY F IIIJNNERY & CO OFFTCTAL SHORTHAND WRTTERS 16 33 Therefore, I am going to continue the suspension of the committal order that I made in June. I am going to adjourn this hearing part heard to l3th November ZO0g. At that point I think I am going to be in a position to decide what the true state of the husband's intentions is. BEVERLEYFNIJNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS tT No. FD07D02865 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Monday. 28t5eptember 2009 Before: MRS. IUSTICE PARKER BETWEEN: MICHELLE DANIQUE YOUNG Applicant -andSCOTT GORDON YOLING Respondent Transcribed by BEWRLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers lHP Quatity House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London l4C2A 7737 Tet: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 info@ ev e r leY n un n e ry. c o m MR. D. BALCOMBE OC (instructed by PCB Litigation) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR. P. MARSHALL (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. JUDGMENT (For Revision) l8 MRS. JUSTICE PARKER: I made an order on 29th June 2009 in the ancillary relief proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. Young. The husband has been long in breach of orders to provide information. The wife says that this is deliberate and is intended to frustrate the course of the inquiry to be undertaken by the cout1. The very brief background is that the husband, who professed to be and was plainly a man of immense wealth in the relatively near past, now claims that he has nothing left. He has provided some answers made of enquiry by him, but they and are far from adequate to explain the disappearance of these funds and assets his business dealings generallY. On2gthJune I found that the husband was in deliberate, that is wilful, default of orders made for disclosure of information and made an order for six months' imprisonment, suspended until today, and made a separate order whereby I directed the husband to file replies to a more recent questioruraire subsequent to the committal proceedings, and to provide an affidavit dealing with his business activities between 2001 and 2009. All that disclosure was to be made by 7th September 2009. The hearing date for the review of the disclosure and for the question of the BEVERLEY F NIJNNERY & CO OFFICTAL SHORTHAND WRITERS n suspended order to be considered was set for today, 28th September 2009. I am in no doubt whatsoever that the husband had plainly in mind what his obligations were and that he had to produce the information by 7th and the court date was 28th. The husband was then in person, having been advised by a solicitor. There has been no compliance whatsoever with the order that I made, not even an attempt at compliance. On 28th August 2OO9 the husband was admitted to hospital under care of Dr. CO. Dr. CO has not provided a diagnosis. He says that it was compulsory but short-term admission. Dr. CO says in his brief leffer dated 3 September 2009 that he thought at that stage when he saw him that the husband was unable to give instructions. The husband was discharged on 1Oth September 2009. According to two letters I have seen from a junior doctor, he is still under outpatient treatment under the Community Mental Health Team. 6 The husband has been refused public funding, perhaps inevitably as a result of the information that I had before me on the last occasion, but he now says that he has obtained a loan of €50,000 from a friend and he has recently and since his discharge from hospital instructed the well-known specialist family practitioners, Payne Hicks Beach 7 . Dr. CO sent the letter dated 3rd September to the wife's solicitors, then briefly BEVERLEY F'NI'NNERY & CO OFFICIAL SHORTIIAND WRITERS Lo instructed, she having changed her representation. That letter was then sent on 14th September by those solicitors to the solicitors who are presently representing the wife. Dr. CO's letter, as I say, described the fact of the husband's admission, but gave no other information as to his condition. Scepticism was irnmediately expressed by PCB Litigation on behalf of the wife as to whether this was a ploy by the husband, and whether he was presenting a false position as to his mental health in order to excuse himself frorn compliance. In the light of the history I can see why they should have that concern. g There was an exchange of solicitors' correspondence as to whether the husband it to should undergo an examination by an independent expert. The wife wanted be a sole instruction. The husband said that it should be a joint instruction. The to husband said that he was prepared to be examined, but an issue arose as whether his medical records should be produced and in fact they were askcd for joint or from 2005. The parties could not agree on the instruction of whether a provide medical sole expert should be instructed and whether it was necessary to records. a joint expert. No one most surprisingly approached Dr' CO in order to get more information as to the circumstances of the admission: What was the diagnosis? What was the prognosis? What was the relevance of the hospital U admission to the default in answering the questionnaires between 29th June and 28th August? The reticence in approaching Dr. CO (a reticence which has been apparent on both sides) has not been helpful to the resolution of the issues before BEVERLEYFNIJNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS el me. The husband through his counsel has expressed concems as to personal details in respect of his health being revealed, but in the light of these committal proceedings it is inevitable that I should have to deal openly with this. This is open justice and the parties and the public are entitled to know the reasons for my decision. The husband accepts that there are no grounds for holding the hearing in private or in imposing reporting restrictions either in private or in open court proceedings. I therefore heard this case in public and a number of members of the Press have been present. l0 The husband is seeking further time to answer the questionnaires. He asked for six weeks to provide the information which was due to be provided by 7th September last and then another four weeks, to answer another reasonably substantial questionnaire which was subrnitted on 24th September, so l0 weeks in total. His reason for asking for further time, and asking me accordingly not to proceed to determine whether or not I should activate the sentence of imprisonment, is that his health problems have precluded him answering the questionnaire. I I As I have said, the wife is extremely suspicious that this is part of the husband's campaign to avoid disclosure and to avoid making provision for her and their BEVERLEYFNUNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS children. She also points to the fact that there are proceedings for possessron against her which she attributes to the husband who she says is in reality in control of the property in which she lives, and to the failure to make other financial provision for the family. 12 The wife has asked for an immediate order of seven days' imprisonment as an inducement to comply. She also asks for the husband to answer the outstanding 3rd June questionnaire within seven days. In the alternative, if I am not minded to activate the sentence of imprisonment or indeed consider that I should adjourn the question whether I should do so and I should give the husband further time, she asks for an order that the husband should provide all outstanding information within 14 days. 13 I am of course suspicious that the husband is procrastinating and seeking to avoid answering. However, I have a letter from a consultant psychiatrist and subsequent leffers from a junior doctor which establish a reasonable possibility that the husband has been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. I do not know whether it is possible for him to hoodwink psychiatrists and I am certainly not prepared to proceed on the assumption that he has done so. 14 I bear in mind, however, that there may be a combination of factors which are operative here. It may be that the husband has been most unwilling to provide the BEVERLEYFNIJNNERY&CO OI'FICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS wife with this information, but it may be that the mental health issues, if genuine, have also impinged upon the timetable which I have no information as I set up last Junel I record that r.G to what the husband was doing between 29th June and 28th August when he was admitted to hospijul, *d I entirely accept that there is no evidence that the husband was doing anything substantial in order to collate this infonnation and to provide it to the wife and her solicitors and to the court. 15 However, I do have to bear in mind that(ghehusband has been disabled from answering due to his health then this would be relevant. Bearing in mind his admission to hospital, it may just be that there was a lead up to his admission which is also relevant to his failure to provide this information' l6 pursuant to the 2001 practice Direction which applies to committal proceedings within the family jurisdiction, I also have to have regard to the Human Rights Act 2000. It seems to me that it would got bE fair, notwithstanding the flagrant with the breaches which have so far taken place and the flagrant noncompliance court's orders at this point, immediately to activate the sentence of imprisonment. 17 I also bear in mind that the aim of these proceedings is to get the husband to comply with the requirements that he disclose a full and frank picture of his financial affairs. The best chance of success is to permit a short focused postponement of the period of suspension. It seems to me appropriate, and indeed BEVERLEY FNUNNERY & CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS L+ the wife asks for this, that rhT:_t!-":14_9", first of all, a proper medical report from Dr. CO who was the admitting and treating psychiatrist who dealt with the husband as to precisely those issues as to the husband's mental health which bear on these proceedings. Mr. Balcombe points out, and I think this is likely to be the case, that it is the usual practice for a psychiatrist when discharging a patient to write a letter of discharge to the patient's GP. t 8 The wife has asked for a sole instruction of another doctor, Dr CR the identity of whom is agreed, in order to provide a second opinion if the information first to be provided from Dr CO is not sufficient to answer any question which she has. The husband is prepared to see Dr. CR. He is prepared to give authority to Dr CR to speak to his treating doctor Dr CO, to attend a consultation or consultations with or examination by Dr. CR and agrees that he will bear the costs of such investigation and report. His medical notes from lst June 2009 to date and any other medical notes relevant to his psychiatric condition should be disclosed to the expert who is to report. I do not think it appropriate that such instruction should be a sole instruction. The usual practice in this Division is for joint instruction to take place. If it is to be a joint instruction, this in itself would provide justification for the husband to bear the costs. I have not had to give consideration as to whether the husband should have borne the costs of a sole instruction. 19 I am prepared to adjourn the question of consideration of sentence of BEVERLEY F NIJ}'NERY & CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS imprisonment whilst a last opportunity is given to the husband now with the benefit of his legal advice to provide answers to the outstanding information. 20 A considerable amount of time has been taken up this afternoon with a debate as to the precise tirne-scale. One of the problems is, first of all, that I am due to go on circuit on23rdNovember and I want to bring this matter back before then. It is obviously a case where I should adjourn this matter part heard. It is not appropriate in for another judge to deal with this at this stage in my view. Zl The second problern is that the wife has no way of supporting herself and her children. Her home is under threat and she wants to have her application for maintenance pending suit to be heard as soon as possible. A date which has been offered is 27th November, a date which I think should be taken up. It is possible for the matter to come back before me on l3th November 2009 which is six weeks and four daYs from todaY. ZZ I was initially attracted by the idea that I should accelerate the whole of the time-scale, not to the 14 days proposed by Mr. Balcombe, but to a period of six all weeks which would allow the matter to come back before me with hopefully the information available. I have been assured by Mr. Marshall that this is simply unrealistic and, as he puts it, setting the husband up to fait. However' the husband at Mr. Balcombe's invitation has been prepared on oath to commit himself to BEVERLEYFNTJNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS J6 undertake to provide the answers to the questionnaires of 2008 and the 3rd June 2009 questionnaire, that latter being a fairly short document, within six weeks from today. He says that he cannot commit himsetf to anything under a l0-week estimate in relation to the information which is required as a result of the 24th September questionnaire. 23 After some considerable debate in my own mind as to the way forward, I have come to the conclusion that the right order is to say that he must answer the inforrnation outstanding as under my 2gthJune order by the date which is six weeks frorn today, 9th November 2009, that will be by 4 pm, with a view to bringing this matter back on 13th November. 24 So far as the information required by the 24th September 2009 document is concerned, he must answer that within 10 weeks of today. I am going to attach a penal notice to that order, but I am not going to make it the subject of the 13th November hearing, nor indeed the subject of the suspended committal order. 25 It seems to me that a very considerable degree of light will be shed upon the husband's true intentions, and what I should do as a result of these committal proceedings and my suspended order, by what happens in respect of the information which is still outstanding as from 7th September. As I say, the time-scale of six weeks came from Mr. Marshall and his team, and the husband BEVERLEYFNTJNNERY&CO OF'FICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS J+ has been prepared to sign up to that time-scale and is prepared to give an undertaking in respect thereof. He is prepared to and must give an undertaking to provide information in respect of the 24th September questionnaire a date which I do not have immediately to hand but with which counsel can provide me. 26 I also am going to order that the husband's UK bank account details must be produced within three weeks of today, and that any question which relates to material ernanating from the tax authorities which relates to income tax or CGT should be produced within four weeks of today. I will debate with counsel in due course whether there it should be a condition of the suspended committal order that he provides that information within that timescale or whether that is best left by confining those conditions to the provision of the information specifically required by -y previous order, because it will be clear by 13th November precisely what the husband's attitude to disclosure is. 27 Mr. Balcombe asks the husband to produce within 7 days the information required by paragraph l1 of the order made by Moylan J. on 19th June 2007. That is the information as to where the husband has obtained the funds by which he has provided for himself, and by way of payment for the applicant (whilst he was making it), and other sums withdrawn by him. Those questions are also posed in the 3rd June questionnaire. I have decided not to order that he should provide that information within 7 days,He must deal with that in answering the 3rd June BEVERLEYFNUNNERY& CO OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS questionnaire. I do not want it to be said that I have distracted the husband and his legal team from the exercise of answering these questionnaires in an orderly and constructive manner by requiring him to concentrate on that matter in isolation. 28 I am going to make an order that the husband attends the next hearing on l3th November. I am going by consent to continue the order whereby the husband's passport continues to be retained by the tipstaff. Whether it is a separate order or whether it is to be part of the order which emanates from my overall decision in these proceedings, it will be recorded that that order is made by consent' 29 I am going to take undertakings from the husband to provide answers to the two earlier questionnaires, of October 2008 and June 2OO9 within six weeks. It will be recorded on the face of the order that the consequences of breach have been explained to the husband. I accept Mr. Balcombe's point that it is important' where there is a possibility, so Mr. Balcombe says, that the husband may once as again withdraw from the process, that there shoutd be a personal commitment well as a commitment by his solicitors. 30 lvfr. McGuirk who is the husband's extremely experienced solicitor agrees (I do not think it is appropriate to ask him to urdertake) to provide updates to the wife's solicitor, the frequency of which I will discuss with counsel, confirming that the husband is continuing to instruct him. That agreement to disclose will not of BEVERLEYFNUNNERY& CO OFFTCTAL SHORTHAND WRITERS Jq course require him to disclose any matters which are privileged as between him and his client. 3l Mr. Marshall has raised a number of points in his response to the hearing today in which he says that the order that I made was defective in a number of respects, and that therefore I should not in any event commit the husband because of the procedural objections to the committal. 32 I have not had to decide on these points, bearing in mind the decision which I have taken on the merits, but I record that I have been referred by both counsel to the case of Mcholls v. Nicholls U997) I FLR 649 and the court's power to dispense with procedural requirements where the interests ofjustice require, contempt of course being a serious matter not only to the applicant but also to the court. When I asked Mr. Marshall what injustice had been done to his client by these alleged defects, the only example which he gave was the fact that he said that because the husband because he had not been served with the order he had been confused in some way as to whether or not this hearing was to take place on 7th or whether he was to provide the information by 7th, and whether this hearing was taking place today on 28th at all. I have already said that I am quite satisfied from my own memory of the hearing that the husband understood completely what it was I intended to provide. BEVERLEY F NI,JNNERY & CO OFFICIAL SHORTTIAM WRITERS 30 33 Therefore, I am going to continue the suspension of the committal order that I made in June. I am going to adjourn this hearing part heard to l3th November 2009. At that point I think I am going to be in a position to decide what the true state of the husband's intentions is. BEVERLEYFNUNNERY&CO OFFICIAL SHORTTIAND WRITERS 3l