Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In part one of this blog post I considered early planning, the range of enforcement remedies available and whether joinder of a party would be appropriate. In this concluding part I will look at the following potential enforcement solutions:
A party in persistent breach of a court order eg for disclosure, or the payment of maintenance pending suit, may be barred from participating in the proceedings if they are shown to be deliberately, voluntarily and knowingly in contempt and the contempt is an impediment to the course of justice.
This is an unusual remedy: the more outrageous and sustained the breach, the more likely that the court will impose this draconian form of relief (M v M  All ER (D) 90 (Feb)). Once barred from participating, the court may be able to be persuaded to draw adverse inferences against the excluded party (see Prest v Petrodel Resources  All ER (D) 90 (Jun) as to the court’s ability to draw adverse inferences).
Orders subject to conditions
Under the case management powers set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), 4.14 the court may make an order subject to conditions and specify the consequences of failure to comply with the order/conditions within a specified time frame. Practitioners may need to be inventive when considering conditions - they can be directed at encouraging compliance with the order or to make enforcement easier. Potential examples are an order for disclosure that sets out the adverse inferences the court will be asked to make in the event that disclosure is not provided, or an order that is subject to costs consequences in the event of default.
While the court will retain its discretion to deal with issues
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234