i        
         

economic-abuse
General Disclaimer: Nothing presented constitutes legal advice and the McKenzie Friend UK Network is not a legal entity or in anyway claims to be a 'legal resource'. The resource guide is supported by McKenzie Friends and Litigants in person for Litigants in Person in Family Court. McKenzie Friends provide layperson support as an informed friend under the Family Court Practice Guidance of 2010. All information is published under the spirit of that guidance. For any corrections of the information, please contact the McKenzie Friend UK Network
 
Economic Abuse in Financial Settlements
 
 
 
Economic abuse was included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 as Domestic Abuse.
 
“Economic Abuse” is defined as any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on another person’s ability to:
 
  • acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or
  • obtain goods or services
 
The following case, outlined four scenarios of financial abuse misconduct

Mostyn J in  OG v AG (Financial Remedies: Conduct) [2020] EWFC 52 :

  1. Gross and obvious personal misconduct but only where there is a financial consequence. This will include economic misconduct provided the high evidential threshold is met;
  2. Add-back arguments where one party has ‘wantonly and recklessly dissipated assets’;
  3. Litigation misconduct which should be penalised in costs rather than affecting the substantive disposition;
  4. Drawing inferences over the extent of the asset base following a party’s failure to give full and frank disclosure.

Mostyn J stated that ‘Conduct should be taken into account not only where it is inequitable to disregard but only where its impact is financially measurable’ .

 
 
Recent Case of DP v EP (conduct: economic abuse: needs)  [2023] EWFC 6
The Judge Stated ' ‘In my view, W’s conduct falls within the definition of economic abuse contained in  DAA 2021 . In the longer term, if not on a day to day basis, W’s conduct has had a substantial adverse effect on H’s ability to access and use his own money […] I appreciate that there are some forms of economic abuse, for example those that involve the coercive restriction of the other party’s day-to-day expenditure, that may be more familiar, and therefore more easily recognised as abusive. However, W’s conduct in this case involved the exploitation of a dominant position, which is the essence of all forms of abusive behaviour; and the fact that H was unaware of W’s behaviour at the time, and that it did not directly impact on his daily life during the marriage, has only made his subsequent discovery of it more shocking. I am in no doubt that H feels a profound sense of betrayal, and that the harm caused by W’s actions has extended well beyond the financial detriment they have caused.’
 
 

Traharne v Limb [2022]

The case of Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27 The case involved a post-nuptial agreement and the wife sought to argue that she was subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour and had not freely entered into the agreement.

The Judge stated that in cases of financial abuse, coercive control could be a factor ' ‘In my judgment, Ormrod LJ’s words are as relevant now as they were when uttered over 40 years ago. They stand the test of time. Coercive and controlling behaviour would plainly be an example of undue pressure, exploitation of a dominant position of relevant conduct. It would be part of all the circumstances as they affect the two parties in “the complex relationship of marriage”. If Ormrod LJ were writing his judgment today, he might have employed words such as “coercive and controlling behaviour”.’
 
 
Share by: