![When a Consent Order Becomes a Battlefield: Lessons from Grace v Grace [2025] EWFC 37](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E12AQGkw0ZxUDb4Xw/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/B4EZU.JWQsH0AI-/0/1740504394720?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=J4ExDX2CyPfvhPkCMDL49JfXZgB7RlfCUK7bl51nsBA)
When a Consent Order Becomes a Battlefield: Lessons from Grace v Grace [2025] EWFC 37
Family law disputes often come with high emotions, but Grace v Grace [2025] EWFC 37 (B) takes acrimony to a whole new level. What should have been a straightforward financial remedy consent order in April 2022 turned into two and a half years of relentless litigation, over 850 emails to the court, more than 20 separate applications, and allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct.
This case is a cautionary tale about how financial disputes can spiral out of control, the importance of finalising consent orders properly, and the consequences of litigation misconduct. It also raises important points about anonymisation of financial remedy judgments—or, in this case, the lack thereof.
What Happened in Grace v Grace?
Mary-Jane Grace (the wife) and Ian Douglas Grace (the husband) agreed on a financial settlement at a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing in April 2022. The deal was relatively straightforward:
However, what should have been a final resolution instead descended into chaos.
The Reasons for Delay
Each party blamed the other for the delays:
Over the next two years, the case became bogged down in endless litigation, with the husband making multiple applications, complaints, and even a Judicial Review against HMCTS, the Judiciary, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and various accountants involved in the case.
Key Legal Issues from the Case
Consent Orders Must Be Properly Finalised
One of the main sources of conflict in this case was the drafting of the consent order. The handwritten agreement made at court in April 2022 was not identical to the typed version submitted later. Although the changes were minor, the husband seized on these discrepancies, arguing they were deliberate alterations that fundamentally changed the settlement.
The court found that:
The differences were insignificant—small wording changes like “charge” vs. “charges” and minor grammatical edits did not affect the substance of the order.
However, errors in drafting should have been corrected quickly, and the solicitor should have ensured the order reflected exactly what was agreed.
Practice Point: Ensure that handwritten agreements made at court are accurately reflected in the final typed consent order to avoid unnecessary disputes.
Litigation Misconduct Can Be Costly
The judge found that the husband had engaged in a relentless campaign of litigation misconduct, including:
Over 850 emails to the court
22+ separate applications
Numerous complaints to regulators
A 13-page formal complaint filed the morning after the final hearing
A 38-page document seeking a General Civil Restraint Order against the wife’s solicitor
The court ruled that:
While the solicitor had made mistakes, the husband’s unreasonable and disproportionate approach was the real cause of delay and ballooning costs.
The husband was ordered to pay ￡20,000 towards the wife’s legal fees—despite being a litigant in person.
Practice Point: Courts take a dim view of excessive, disproportionate litigation. Unreasonable conduct can lead to adverse costs orders—even against litigants in person.
Anonymisation of Family Court Judgments Is Not Guaranteed
Most financial remedy judgments are anonymised to protect the privacy of the parties. However, in this case, the court decided to name both parties, citing Peel J’s analysis in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130, which outlines when publication without anonymity is justified.
HHJ Farquhar ruled that:
The case involved serious litigation misconduct that warranted public exposure.
The husband’s campaign of obstruction was so extreme that the case fell into the “public interest” exception.
Practice Point: Anonymisation in financial remedy cases is not automatic. Where there is serious misconduct, courts may choose to name and shame.
Key Points of Note for Family Law Practitioners
Avoid Drafting Disputes – Get the Order Right
Ensure that the typed version of a consent order exactly matches the agreement made in court.
If errors are spotted post-hearing, correct them quickly and transparently to avoid unnecessary disputes.
Litigants in Person Are Not Immune from Costs Orders
The husband’s self-representation did not protect him from a costs order.
Courts will penalise excessive and unreasonable litigation, even when a party acts without a lawyer.
Excessive Applications Will Backfire
The husband’s obsession with perceived injustices led to costly, unnecessary litigation.
Courts will dismiss repetitive applications and can restrict further filings under a Civil Restraint Order.
Anonymity Is Not Automatic
If a party engages in extreme litigation misconduct, courts may refuse anonymity in published judgments.
Financial remedy cases are usually anonymised, but bad behaviour can lead to public exposure.
Final Thoughts: A Case That Should Have Ended in 2022
Grace v Grace should have been a routine consent order. Instead, it dragged on for over two years, consumed thousands of hours of court time, and resulted in spiralling costs for both parties.
For practitioners, this case is a masterclass in what can go wrong when disputes over consent orders are not swiftly resolved. It is also a stark warning about the risks of litigation misconduct—and a reminder that, in extreme cases, anonymity is not guaranteed.
Contact Information
James Thornton Family Law is open for business, and we’re ready to help with your family law needs. For more information or to book a consultation, please get in touch: