Introduction
When litigants in person (LiPs) appear in the family courts, accuracy and enforcement are everything. A draft judgment is not a final order — it can and must be corrected before it is sealed. If errors are left uncorrected, litigants face impossible barriers to enforcement.
In my own case, the draft judgment contained factual and financial errors: arrears were misstated, statutory 8% interest omitted, and my needs and debts left out. Without correction, the order could not be enforced, leaving me trapped in further litigation. This is why corrections under Practice Direction 30A para 4.6 are so important for all LiPs.
To highlight wider systemic concerns, I filed a Transparency Pilot Annex on 1 September 2025, raising seven public interest questions for District Judge Mody. These questions go beyond my case: they ask whether the family courts are truly enforcing their own orders equally, regardless of professional status.
The Seven Transparency Questions
Q1. Enforcement of Penal Notices
All financial orders made against the Respondent carry penal notices on the front page. Despite repeated breach, arrears now exceed £35,000 plus statutory interest. Why have those penal notices not been acted upon, and what message does this send to the public regarding equal enforcement of orders?
Q2. Professional Status and Equal Treatment
Does the Respondent’s status as a barrister and King’s Counsel affect the Court’s willingness to enforce orders against him? If not, why does the record show repeated default without penal consequence, in contrast to the penal enforcement measures pursued against the Applicant as a litigant in person?
Q3. Immunity in Practice
Is the Respondent, in practice, being treated as if immune from penal enforcement? If so, on what legal basis? Authorities such as Rondel v Worsley [1969] AC 191 and Thackrah [1974] AC 727 concern advocate immunity from civil negligence suits and have not been cited in these proceedings. They do not extend to compliance with financial remedy orders.
Q4. Judicial Duty and Public Confidence
The judicial oath requires equal justice “without fear or favour.” What assurance does this Court give to litigants and the public that penal notices and enforcement powers will be applied consistently, regardless of a party’s professional standing?
Q5. Economic and Financial Abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises economic abuse and financial control as forms of domestic abuse. Evidence on the court record, including previous orders and transcripts, shows repeated patterns of non-payment, financial obstruction, and coercive economic control by the Respondent. Why have these issues not been formally addressed or recorded by the Court within these proceedings, despite the statutory duty to recognise and respond to domestic abuse?
Q6. Detrimental Health Impact and ‘Lawfare’
The Respondent’s sustained use of financial obstruction, delay, and repeated applications has had a detrimental impact on the Applicant’s health, including trauma symptoms evidenced by medical reports. This amounts to lawfare — the abusive use of legal privilege and professional networks to wear down an opponent through litigation misconduct rather than lawful compliance. How does the Court intend to recognise and address this pattern, given the serious harm caused and its clear fit within the statutory understanding of coercive control and economic abuse?
Q7. Recognition of DARVO and SLAPP Tactics
The Respondent’s conduct fits the recognised patterns of DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) and SLAPP-style litigation (using repeated, resource-draining applications to silence and punish). These are internationally acknowledged as abusive legal strategies. Why has the Court failed to acknowledge these dynamics in this case, and instead appeared to extend de facto immunity to a member of the Bar with close professional ties to the judiciary?
Why This Matters
For litigants in person, every figure, every correction, every enforcement step matters. A draft order with errors can block access to justice for months or years. Penal notices that are ignored erode faith in equal treatment under the law.
By raising these questions, I hope to highlight that access to justice must mean equal enforcement of court orders, without fear or favour — regardless of who sits on the other side of the courtroom.
Disclaimer
This blog reflects my personal experience as an applicant in family financial remedy proceedings. It is published under the Birmingham Financial Remedies Court Transparency Pilot, in the public interest, to contribute to informed discussion about equal enforcement, judicial practice, and litigants in person. No confidential child or medical details are disclosed.