High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions

(i) The respondent submitted that it was within the power of the petitioner to have accounts for the financial year ending June 2006 compiled and that the same should be provided in these proceedings.Self evidently the current and historic earnings of the petitioner are relevant issues in this case Mr Donaghy , who appeared on behalf of the respondent, relied upon G v G (1992) 1 FLR 40 for this submission. In that case a wife had sought from the court an order under r. 77(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977 that the solicitor husband produce a letter confirming the terms of his partnership from a responsible person in the firm of solicitors which he had joined to corroborate his evidence contained in an affidavit made by him . Bracewell J concluded that although the wife was entitled to require from the husband such further information as was proper and necessary for this fair disposal of the matter, there was no jurisdiction to order a third party to provide the information sought. She varied the order of the court at first instance to the extent that the husband should use his best endeavours to produce the letter containing the information sought. In the instant case Mr Donaghy urged the court to make a similar order to the effect that Mr Monteith should use his best endeavours to produce a statement of accounts for the year June 2005 to June 2006. Ms Walsh QC who appeared on behalf of the husband, resisted that application on the basis that the court had no power to order a firm of accountants to draw up or audit the accounts of the petitioner and since the accounts for the year June 2005-June2006 were required by the Inland Revenue until 2007 the court should not accede to the application. I respectfully adopt the approach by Bracewell J that this court has no power to order a third party ie a firm of accountants to provide the information sought by way of preparing accounts. However the processing of this case before the court cannot be frustrated by the failure of one party to provide information relevant to his earnings for the financial year June 2005-June 2006.Fulfilment of his obligations to the Inland Revenue is quite separate from his obligation to make proper and fair disclosure to this court Were this not to be the case, the court determining the substantive issue would be left with historical information reaching back only as far as June 2005. The consequence of this would be that further costs might well be incurred by a further application to the court to vary the order once these accounts become available. Apathy and/or lethargy whether consciously or subconsciously employed, cannot be allowed to provide an unnecessary hurdle for a fair and proper determination of an income award by arming the court only with out of date and historical information. An experienced solicitor, as this petitioner clearly is, must have been aware that the court would wish to have current and up-to-date information. It seems to me therefore that this respondent is fully entitled to all information relevant to the earnings of the petitioner in the financial year June 2005- June2006 so that she can, if she wishes, employ the services of an expert to prepare some accounts which will permit the court to ascertain this man's current earnings.Her reasonable needs cannot be dictated by or postponed to the requirements of the Inland Revenue Since the petitioner has chosen not to have any such accounts prepared, notwithstanding his knowledge now for many months that this case was in the near future, the respondent must be permitted to have the necessary information in order to obviate that difficulty by employing her own expert if necessary . Ms Walsh argued that this would demand disclosure of a confidential nature involving details of the petitioner's clients. The petitioner could have obviated this by having accounts prepared even in outline form but insofar as he has not done so, it seems to me that some careful redaction of clients' names and details can quite easily be done in the case of any information provided. I have therefore come to the conclusion that an order should be made directing the petitioner to disclose to the solicitor for the respondent all information and documentation relevant to his earnings in the financial year June 2005-2006.

(ii) The second matter that arose was the claim by the respondent that the petitioner should identify the "petitioner's property" and provide a valuation of same. The response of the petitioner to this, was that items of furniture removed from the matrimonial home were the property of the petitioner's mother and were not relevant to the ancillary relief. He therefore objected to preparing inventories of such material or disclosing their whereabouts. It has been my experience through many years of practice, that one of the most vexing, time consuming and cost wasting aspects of ancillary relief can disputes over furniture and household materials. It is absolutely crucial that the courts, in order to make a fair determination, have clear inventories outlining and describing those items of furniture and household materials to which each party lays claim and identification of those items which it is alleged belong to third parties albeit in the matrimonial home . Failure to do this can lead to confusion and disarray in describing disputed items. Accordingly it is my view that the petitioner should disclose to the respondent a list of those items which he declares belong to his mother and which have been removed from the matrimonial home together with an inventory of those items which he declares are matrimonial furniture assets and remain within the home. Only by doing this can the court have a clear picture of those items which are in dispute and those which are not. The whereabouts of the items which have been removed require to be disclosed to enable inspection if necessary to take place. Accordingly I have ordered that the petitioner provides an inventory of all items removed from the matrimonial home at Beech Park and which he alleges to be the property of his mother together with the present whereabouts of same.In addition ,for the removal of doubt ,there must be provided a further inventory of those items which he asserts are joint furniture assets .