The High Court has struck out proceedings by L.B. challenging legislation that allowed property and pension adjustment orders in his separation and divorce cases. Ms Justice Stack ruled on 6 April 2022 that the main issues had already been decided in earlier cases, and that a later argument under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was barred as an abuse of process.
The case concerned orders affecting a family home built on land L.B. had bought, and his pension. He said he had funded the home and its extensions. A 1998 judicial separation order required the house to be sold and the net proceeds divided equally. In 2004, the Circuit Court ordered a 35/65 division of the proceeds in his divorce case and awarded his former wife 20% of his pension. On appeal, the High Court changed the house division to 40/60.
L.B. had previously challenged the legal basis for those orders. In 2006, the High Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the relevant family law provisions; the Supreme Court upheld that judgment in 2009. His 2011 proceedings, which again challenged the orders and sought monetary relief, were dismissed by the High Court in 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal in 2015.
In the current case, L.B. sought declarations that the property provisions of the Family Law Act 1995 and Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 were invalid, and restitution of property and money. He also argued that the legislation violated Article 17 of the EU Charter. The State defendants sought to strike out the proceedings on grounds including res judicata, abuse of process, and that they were frivolous or vexatious. They did not pursue a separate limitation argument.
Justice Stack first allowed L.B. to amend his summons and statement of claim, then considered the strike-out application against the amended pleadings. She found the constitutional arguments had already been rejected in the earlier proceedings and were res judicata. She held that the Charter argument could have been raised in the 2011 case and, in the circumstances, was an attempt to advance substantially the same arguments again. She also concluded that the proceedings were vexatious.
The court struck out the proceedings. It did not determine the State defendants’ separate application for an Isaac Wunder order, which could restrict future court proceedings without leave. Justice Stack directed that the matter be listed before her in early course to hear that application.