A husband who was said to have misused access codes to grant himself a divorce in an “abusive and controlling act” has narrowly avoided a committal application, the High Court ruled this morning.
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said it was “unusual for a divorce case to come before the President” but he was “extremely concerned” to hear that a husband had signed a petition on the HMCTS Digital Divorce Portal stating he had been separated from his wife for over two years. We were told this was not true as apparently not only were the couple still living at the same address but “they hadn’t separated and she didn’t know”.
The Law Gazette reported that the use of the Digital divorce was made mandatory for new applications in September 2021.
Explaining that “it’s important if there has been an abuse of the process for that to be identified and made public” the President considered whether a Committal application should be made, and if so whether this would be pursued by the wife or the court on its own motions. A successful committal application for contempt of court can be punished by a fine or up to two years in prison.
The court was told that the couple had now reconciled and that the wife “wants to give the marriage a chance”. Upon the Judge asking “does your client have any instructions as to what I should do?” the barrister representing the wife replied “my client wouldn’t encourage the court to embark upon that course of action”.
Considering the “serious matter” before the court the President explained to the husband that “if a divorce is granted that is a major change of status between you and your wife. In other cases this may involve children and the rest. It’s a very significant matter.”
Declining to pursue a committal application the judge said “The court does have power to take action itself. I could embark on contempt proceedings now. I am sure you would not want me to do that. I’m not going to do that now. It’s important for the two of you to have the best chance of reconciling”
Addressing the husband directly the Judge continued – “It was not your finest hour at all. It’s an abusive and controlling act if you did it.”
Making no order for costs the court did not accede to an invitation to hand down a judgment as the court hadn’t “found anything proved”.
The court would be making further enquires with HMCTS we were told at the end of this 14-minute-hearing.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Before The President, sitting in Open Court
Court 33
02/02/2022
10.30am
Case: ZZ21D84031
Mouse in the Court 