Michael Horton KC with Rachel Cooper continue to act for the respondent husband within Part III of the 1984 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act (‘the 1984 Act’) instructed by Ellie Foster of LCF Law Solicitors.
This judgment arose from further interlocutory applications in these proceedings made by the applicant wife. By her application, the wife asked the court to make a mandatory injunction, either under s 24(2)(a) of the 1984 Act or under the Senior Courts Act 1981, requiring the husband to require RX (a company in another jurisdiction) to grant a further lease or to extend a lease to PX company (also a company in another jurisdiction but with an English parent company) that was due to expire.
Michael and Rachel acted for the husband, who controlled RX which held the freehold of Zx (a hotel overseas). Zx’s premises were let to PX, in which both spouses had an interest. The lease was due to expire and the wife sought an injunction to require the husband to cause RX to extend the lease. Mike and Rachel argued that the court had no power to require a party to extend a lease, and could not do so here where the property was owned by a company and not a spouse. The judge upheld that argument and dismissed the application for an injunction. The judge confirmed that the court’s jurisdiction “is fundamentally prohibitive in nature; it does not empower the Court to direct that actions should be taken to ensure that an asset which would otherwise naturally fall away (such as on the expiration of a lease) should be [kept alive]. As Lord Hoffman explained in Alsulaimen, doing nothing is not a disposition.”
The court also considered the circumstances in which a ‘pound for pound’ order for the payment of legal services funding under both s 22ZA of the 1973 Act, or as a costs allowance under the 1984 Act.
See here for the judgment, or below.
