Court evidence non supply

At my FDR, there was no agreement. However both sols. asked for futher evidence to be supplied. One of the directions for me was to supply evidence of my partners earning, which in this case is her state pension. My sol. asked for the last 3 P60's pf my X's partner. He had previously supplied, as I had, via form E his earnings.

I have now supplied all details and met the court directions, but I have received a reply from my X's sol. that my X's partner declines to give the P60 evidence required. Is that allowed and what can I do?

As the new partner, I was asked for my last three pay slips by my partner's ex on her list of further questions. I told him she could sing for them, because I don't see why my earnings are any of her business, nor why they would have any bearing on this particular case.

I sought independent legal advice, and was told that she could force me to reveal my financial affairs through a court order, but that she would be unlikely to do so because it would cost her so much.

If you really need to know his details, then why not ask him directly if you can? Otherwise, spend the money and ask the Court to order it, I would not imagine it will make a blind bit of difference though, particularly given that you already have his details on the Form E (as she has mine).

So in answer to your question, yes you can do something, if you are prepared to spend the money.

Hi juttabeck
Thanks for reply. The point is just that, the court have ordered my X's partner to produce the evidence for the final hearing. This one of five points required of my X, of which four were answered. I know that he circumstances, job wise, have changed much for the better. SO his previous info. is totally under estimated.

I believe that if the courts ask for evidence it should be given. Or is it the case that any one including sols. can put two fingers up in the air to the justice system?

If the justice system were always fair then maybe we should never question its decisions but it seems to me from reading this site over the last few days that much of what happens in court re: divorce is based on the arbitrary decisions of the judge.

I'm with juttabeck on this one, I can't see why its relevant to ask what a person's new partner earns. It is reasonable to assume that if someone is living with someone else then they are sharing their bills 50/50 and their needs should be adjusted accordingly but why should the rest of their income be relevant? What a new partner (on either side of the divorce) does with the rest of their money after they've paid the bills they share is nobody's business.

Hi Ephelia
I always believed that the idea of Ancillary relief was to produce a fair decision for both parties with due regard to their current and the forseable future. Pehaps I am not understanding THe MCA 1973 section 25 part 2?

Who decides what's fair? Why is that persons view of what's fair better than another's? From everything I've experienced myself and everything I've seen on this site, its clear the law needs to change, so I think its OK for me to question it.

As for a partner's earnings, well a marriage is between two people, so surely that's whose finances should matter in the divorce. If one or both partners live with someone else and share bills that's relevant and should be taken into account, so by all means assume that living costs are halved in these circumstances, but how much the new partner earns should not be relevant.

The new partner may not share their money with the stbx of someone else; the partner may not be 'the partner' for very long; how can a court know any of these things? And if they can't know, why should they take something into account that is pure speculation on anyone's part.

Sorry, that's just my view.

Hi Ephelia
Yes i dp believe there is a case for reform in the divorce proceeding. I believe latter on this year there going to some reform. However I wont hold my breathe. But we must have law and statutes otherwise we are a lawless society.

What about the improvements in the divorce laws in particular pensions where the housewife now has an absolute right to her share of the husbands pension and of course vice versa if that is the case.

What about one party divorcing and marrying a very rich person and then saying to the X, who has a moderate income, by the way i am going to court to claim 50% of the FMH and your pension. This leaves the X in a grave financial situation. I think I know, adhering to the MCA's 73, the outcome.

So I still believe it is right to take into account all financial income.

However the point I am still labouring is if the judge orders you to observe, answer or obey certain points, then you must!