Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

Thursfield v Thursfield (Re: Legal & Living Expenses)

[2011] EWHC 3714 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3714 (Ch)

Case No: 1 BM 30278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

Royal Courts of Justice

7 Rolls Buildings,

Fetter Lane, London

EC4A 1N

Date: Tuesday, 6th December 2011

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURLE QC

(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

LINDA JANE THURSFIELD

Claimant

- and -

DAVID THURSFIELD

Defendant

Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,

1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.

Tele No: 020 7067 2900, Fax No: 020 7831 6864, DX: 410 LDE

Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com

Website: www.martenwalshcherer.com

LANCE ASHWORTH QC (instructed by SGH Martineau LLP) for the Claimant

CHRISTOPHER PARKERQC (instructed by Messrs.Clintons) for the Defendant

Judgment (Re: Legal & Living Expenses)

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURLE:

1.

I am now asked to consider what the position should be in relation to legal expenses and living expenses and in particular the right of the defendant to have recourse to his UK pension for that purpose. The original freezing order of course, as is standard, made provision for living and legal expenses to be paid. As it happens the pension fund monies have been frozen as a result of representations made by the claimant's solicitors.

2.

The position before me today is different to how it appeared on 27th May. It is now known that there are assets available, though on what basis is not presently known, to the defendant for his living and legal expenses. I am asked to ensure that he can take those expenses from the UK pension monies, as originally intended. I agree that that must originally have been intended, but that was before the court knew that there were other assets available to the defendant, which might not be caught by the freezing order and which, though in reality or in substance his, might not be amenable to processes of execution.

3.

The object of the further questions that have been put to the defendant is to elicit information to enable that situation to be judged more fully. What will be the end result remains to be seen. One knows from experience that the next application may or may not be an application for cross-examination or committal or something of that sort. It seems to me that the court is not in a position to judge, as of today, whether it is right that the only known UK asset, namely the pension fund, should be first in line for the payment of living and legal expenses in circumstances where there are other sources of funding available to the defendant.

4.

I shall, therefore, vary the order so that the exception shall not permit payments from what I will call for short the Ford UK pension fund. That fund will not be available for legal and living expenses until further order.

5.

There will be permission to apply to either side to vary that particular paragraph and that will enable the defendant, on the assumption that he is fully forthcoming with the court, to explain what the difficulty is and why he should have recourse to that asset first and foremost.

Thursfield v Thursfield (Re: Legal & Living Expenses)

[2011] EWHC 3714 (Ch)

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (91.2 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.