Hostile divorce judge thrown off case in English case
The Telegraph reported recently that a 'Hostile' divorce judge was forced to withdraw from a Divorce case:
High court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn, Sir Paul McCartney’s former divorce barrister, has been thrown off a case for showing too much “hostility” after threatening to imprison a husband suffering from cancer for failing to keep up divorce payments.
Three Court of Appeal judges have found that the Mr. Justice Mostyn's “hostility” to a husband embroiled in a divorce case has made him unsuitable to hear any more evidence
By Robert Mendick, and Robert Verkaik
31 Jan 2015
A high court judge who threatened to imprison a husband suffering from cancer for failing to keep up divorce payments has been thrown off the case for using “intemperate” language and showing too much “hostility”.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn, Sir Paul McCartney’s barrister in his divorce from Heather Mills, had been hearing a case in which the former wife of a mining tycoon claimed she is owed £2 million.
When the tycoon’s wife complained that her former husband had failed to keep up the payments, Sir Nicholas ordered him to appear before him in his private chambers and threatened him with imprisonment.
But now three Court of Appeal judges, after studying transcripts of the encounter, have found that the judge’s “hostility” to David Mann has made him unsuitable to hear any more evidence. It is rare for such a senior judge as Sir Nicholas to be removed from a case. The Court of Appeal judges declared Sir Nicholas “compromised”.
The case revolves around a long-running, complex and extremely bitter divorce battle between Mr Mann and his former wife, Shelley Mann, mother of his two children. It is a saga that began with their separation as long ago as 1997 and has led to numerous court hearings and judgments.
Mrs Mann, 47, now accuses her husband of owing her £2 million from a divorce settlement and claims she is faced with being thrown out of her home in Belgravia, central London, over £50,000 in rent arrears he has failed to pay.
Mr Mann, 49, for his part, says he is unable to help as he is suffering from cancer and has “run out of money”.
The case finally came before Sir Nicholas last year. Before his elevation to the High Court in 2010, Sir Nicholas was considered the most feared divorce barrister in London, with clients including Sir Paul and Earl Spencer.
He earned the nickname “Mr Payout” for his ability to secure generous settlements in a series of cases that saw England become the worlds’ most favourable jurisdiction for divorcing wives. Spouses would battle to get Sir Nicholas on their side.
But the High Court judge was caught up in controversy of his own when, in 2010, he walked out on his wife Lucy to live with Elizabeth Saunders, a divorce barrister. Mrs Saunders’ husband Mark, also a divorce barrister, was shot dead by police marksmen during a siege off King’s Road in Chelsea in 2008.
The disclosure that Sir Nicholas has been removed — or in legal jargon “recused” — from the Manns’ divorce case emerged in a Court of Appeal judgment, now public.
In the ruling seen by the Telegraph, in which Mr Mann is referred to as H for husband and Mrs Mann as W for wife, Lady Justice Macur said: “The stated perception of H [Mr Mann] during the first instance proceedings that Mostyn J [judge] has 'made up his mind about [H’s] ability to pay’ is objectively confirmed by the intemperate judicial dialogues recorded in the transcripts of the proceedings between February and June 2014. During that time Mostyn J’s frustration is palpable and clearly arises from his obvious belief that H is deliberately and maliciously avoiding his legal and moral responsibilities to W [Mrs Mann].”
She added that Sir Nicholas’s “previous interventions and expressed hostility towards H will not have helped to manage her [Mrs Mann’s] expectations in the uncertain world of litigation”.
She ordered: “Objectively, I consider that Mostyn J is compromised in continuing to deal with this case and would direct that it should be listed before another judge of the division.”
According to the Appeal Court judges, Mr Mann was told to appear before Sir Nicholas in June last year, “to show cause why [Mr Mann] should not be committed to prison… for having refused or neglected to pay the sums due … where he has or has had the means to do so”.
Mr Mann said that he has cancer, has run out of money and is living in social housing.
Last night Mr Mann’s lawyer, Raymond Tooth, himself one of the most formidable divorce solicitors in London with the nickname “Jaws”, said: “Sir Nicholas had shown general hostility to my client and wouldn’t listen to him, so we applied to recuse him from the case.” Mr Tooth said that during a private hearing in chambers between the judge and Mr Mann, Sir Nicholas had in effect “entered the ring” instead of remaining objective.
One divorce lawyer said last night: “It is very rare for a judge to be removed from a case. I can think of only one other case in seven years.”
Another divorce lawyer said: “He is a good judge and nothing but straight and honest, but on this one he has overplayed his hand. Clearly he felt this woman was owed a settlement and he was trying to use an arcane legal manoeuvre to make that happen. But the appeal judges have said that was wrong.”
Sir Nicholas, who declined to comment last week, most famously secured a favourable divorce settlement for Sir Paul in his acrimonious battle with Heather Mills, his second wife. Miss Mills was awarded just under £25 million for their four-year marriage after arguing for as much as £125 million.
During his own marital split, Sir Nicholas was reported to have obtained an order to stop her speaking publicly about their break-up. However, his lawyers refused to say which court granted the order, or give any detail of its terms. Lady Mostyn refused to comply and later told friends that the attempt to silence her amounted to “pathetic bullying”.
In 2011, Earl Spencer dropped a legal action against Sir Nicholas, who represented him in his 2009 divorce. The earl blamed him for his loss of £1 million in the settlement.