[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Thursfield v Thursfield (Re: Legal & Living Expenses) [2011] EWHC 3714 (Ch) (06 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/3714.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 3714 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Royal Courts of Justice 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1N
		6th December 2011

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.
- - - - - - - - - -