The Family Court made final a charging order securing an unpaid costs order after a maintenance dispute, rejecting arguments of hardship and that enforcement should wait for ongoing proceedings.
Key facts
- Who: People who owe, or are owed, money under a family court costs order, particularly where enforcement against sale proceeds of a former matrimonial home is in issue.
- From: Judgment of 19 March 2026
- Source: AJ v FJ (No.2)(Charging Order) [2026] EWFC 113
In AJ v FJ (No.2)(Charging Order) [2026] EWFC 113, Mr Justice Macdonald, sitting in the High Court of Justice Family Division on 19 March 2026, decided whether to make final an interim charging order. The judgment was given in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the children and their family is preserved.
Background
AJ, the applicant, had successfully appealed against the decision of the Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre to register a Polish interim maintenance order obtained by FJ, the respondent. That decision has the neutral citation [2024] EWFC 356. On 6 February 2025 the court ordered FJ to pay AJ's costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £18,685.80 including VAT, within 28 days. FJ did not file submissions on costs and the order was not appealed.
On 1 July 2025 AJ's solicitors gave notice of an intended application for a charging order over FJ's share of the former matrimonial home. There was no response. An interim charging order was made without notice on 17 October 2025 and served on 22 October 2025.
The question
Should the interim order be made final, given FJ's arguments that it would cause hardship to her and the children, and that maintenance proceedings were continuing in which she intended to seek a set-off or enforcement?
The decision
The court made the order final in the sum shown in the statement of debt.
The reasoning
The judge applied section 1(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 and authorities including Harman v Glencross, which require a balance between the creditor's normal expectation of enforcement and any hardship to a spouse and children. Because the home had already been sold and FJ had received most of her share, there was no question of her matrimonial home rights being affected. The only issue was hardship.
The court was not satisfied that FJ and the children would suffer hardship. She had received over £80,000 from the sale (£84,462.44 was cited), owned a home in Poland where she lived with the children, and had a job and an income. The invoices for the children's treatment did not suggest undue hardship. Neither the English nor the Polish courts had made findings of domestic abuse. FJ had not discharged the burden of showing undue hardship.
The court also refused a stay pending the maintenance dispute. The costs debt was owed regardless and remained unappealed, other enforcement routes were open to FJ, and no hardship would result. The continuing dispute was not, of itself, a reason for delay.
What this means for people facing enforcement of a costs order
In this case a costs order was enforced by a charging order over the proceeds of a former matrimonial home. The court said a creditor is generally entitled to expect enforcement, and that a separate dispute over maintenance did not by itself justify delay.
On hardship, the court looked at the evidence before it about this respondent's housing, income and the sale proceeds she held. Each case depends on its own facts.
Sources
- AJ v FJ (No.2)(Charging Order) [2026] EWFC 113, High Court of Justice, Family Division, 19 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/113