Written by: Chris Stevenson
In the second of the “Meet the Players” series, Eddie Lloyd-Jones chaired this introductory seminar on Mental Health Review Tribunals and the Court of Protection.
Ros Dunning, solicitor and senior partner of Dunning & Co solicitors, is a member of the Law Society’s Mental Health Panel and also a Mental Health Review Tribunal judge. She spoke at the seminar, along with Chris Stevenson, barrister at FOURTEEN, whose specialisms include proceedings brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the Court of Protection.
Wife’s appeal in financial remedy proceedings in which she sought an anonymity order and argued that the law in this regard should change. Appeal refused
Michael has today (25 January) successfully appealed 6 orders made during the course of a long-running divorce battle between Mr Jawaid Iqbal and Mrs Marie Iqbal in proceedings that have been ongoing for over 6 years. The Court of Appeal decision overturns court orders made between 2010 and 2015 including a final order that provided for the husband to pay a lump sum of £3,220,000, together with arrears of periodical payments in the amount of £530,000 and ongoing spousal maintenance of £10,000 per month to the wife. The Court of Appeal also overturned committal notices made against the husband which carried the threat of a prison sentence. Michael Glaser of Fourteen and Boodle Hatfield’s Harriet Errington were appointed by Mr Iqbal in 2015 following the final order in these long-running proceedings. Michael’s appeal highlighted, amongst other things, numerous and serious procedural irregularities which today resulted in all of the orders being set aside. In delivering their judgment, Lord Justice Ryder, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Simon concluded that "elementary procedural protections that the husband had a right to expect would be observed were not". The Lord Justices criticised the lower courts for their failure to adhere to effective case-management, the result of which was to put the husband at an unfair disadvantage as the evidence filed by him during the course of the long-running proceedings appeared to be disregarded at the final hearing. The judgment highlights the "glaring omissions that characterise the decision making process in this case". The Lord Justices also condemned the decision to commit the husband to prison for failure to make the payments ordered by the lower courts, citing procedural irregularities such as no evidence having been filed by the wife and no findings having been made as to the husband's means to pay. Lord Justice Ryder commented that "the absence of any analysis of the parties’ needs and the husband’s ability to make the payments ordered was a fatal absence of reasoning on the facts of this case". The judgment highlights the failings of the lower courts in this long-running case. The parties' financial remedy proceedings can now be dealt with afresh.