This case
46.And so I turn to the evidence given in this case. The wife was by far the better witness. Her evidence was generally clear and given in reasonable tones. She generally answered questions directly. In contrast the quality of the evidence of the husband was poor. He was combative, evasive, rhetorical, strident and in some respects obviously untruthful. For example, he flatly denied that the wife had a key to his home in Belgravia. Yet there is a WhatsApp message from him in which he is expressly states that she has the keys to his house.47.However, this case is a good example of the perils of placing emphasis on the demeanour of a witness, or placing too great a reliance on a witness’s irrelevant lies or other low conduct, when finding facts or exercising a discretion. In my judgment, the demeanour of a witness when giving evidence is unlikely to be a reliable aid either to finding facts, or exercising a discretion on uncontested facts. It is not just that a dishonest witness may have a very persuasive demeanour – that is of course, the first trick in a conman’s repertoire. But the opposite side of the coin is equally problematic in that a truthful witness may unfortunately have a classically dishonest demeanour. It is obvious to me that over-reliance on the “quality” of the evidence of a witness, good or bad, can lead to facts being found, or discretion exercised, by reference to influences that are irrelevant11.48.At the end of the day in this case there was not much difference between the parties as to the dismal quality of their relationship from the moment of its formation. One key difference concerned the issue of whether there was in the period before decree nisi physical violence meted out by the husband to the wife. In her petition the wife pleaded two specific acts of violence, the first in the summer of 2012 at the husband’s home in Belgravia, and the second, in August 2013 when the parties were on holiday in Spain. Although in his evidence before me the husband denied these events took place, they had been proved by a statement endorsed with a declaration of truth by the wife, which was not contested. Those events were accepted as true by the court and were the factual basis for the decree. The wife confirmed in her oral evidence to me the truth of those allegations. I am completely satisfied that they are true, and in any event the husband is estopped from denying the truth of them.49. The wife also pleaded that on numerous occasions the husband had been verbally abusive towards her, that communications between them had irretrievably broken down, and that the husband was not being truthful about aspects of his life. 50.In her evidence to me the wife accepted that in the period of the marriage before decree nisi she was the victim of both psychological and physical abuse, but that following the “reconciliation” in November 2014 until the final end of the marriage in March 2020 she no longer suffered physical abuse but that the psychological abuse continued unrelentingly. I have been given a thick file of WhatsApp messages between the parties which make very dispiriting reading and which certainly bears out the suggestion that there was a great deal of psychological abuse through this medium (although the messages show that the wife gave as good as she got).51.The wife’s evidence was that the relationship following the “reconciliation” was toxic and unhealthy although it did not include physical violence. She asserted that, physical violence apart, they resumed their marriage just as it had been before. Although they did not live together permanently, as before, she would spend on average three nights a week with him and of course they would go on lengthy holidays together. They held themselves out to the world as a married couple, for example accepting a joint invitation to the wedding of Mr and Mrs Blair’s daughter and going to the World Economic Forum in Davos together. Although the adoption of J was by the wife alone in proceedings in Russia, the husband was fully involved and was, she says, a de facto adoptive parent, who treated J, as he now accepts, as a child of the family. 52.The husband’s evidence was that the relationship was equally bad before and after decree nisi. He disputed there was any kind of meaningful reconciliation although he accepted that sexual relations took place on a few occasions in 2016, 2017 and 2018. He also accepted that the parties went on holiday together. He explained that he did so in order to be able to have contact to his children in circumstances where the wife was prone to limit his contact. He trenchantly disputed that they spent as many as two nights a week together. When he was asked why he did not apply before 14 January 2022 for the decree nisi to be made absolute his answer was that he loved the wife and he wanted to have her back. In his evidence he said: "we could not stay in the same room for five minutes without arguing. But I loved her. I still love her." This highlights just how toxic and unpleasant was their marriage, and their later "reconciliation".53.There are paradoxical aspects to the respective cases. The wife’s case is that notwithstanding the terms of her petition, verified by her with a statement of truth, and found to be true by the court, the decree pronounced was erroneous, because she could, and did, live with the respondent and it was reasonable to expect her to do so. Further, it was doubly erroneous as the marriage had not irretrievably broken down. Put more simply, she argues that the decree was wrong and contrary to the justice of the case because 12 months after its pronouncement she resumed her disastrous, toxic and unhealthy relationship with the husband.54.I have not before encountered a case where an applicant seeks to impeach an earlier decree made in her favour.55.It is the husband’s case that the relationship was just as bad after decree as before. I watched with amazement as Mr Molyneux KC put to it the wife in cross-examination that his own client had behaved just as badly (if not worse) after the decree as before it. Again, that was a novel experience for me.56.My finding on the evidence is that this was always a highly defective marriage. The husband was rightly found to have behaved in such a way that the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him. On 17 October 2013 (the date of the certificate, which was formalised on 15 November 2013 by pronouncement of decree nisi) the court rightly found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The parties were drawn back together about 12 months after the making of the decree nisi, but it would be an abuse of language to describe their resumed relationship as a marital reconciliation. While they may have referred to each other, and to the world, as husband-and-wife there was no enjoyment of each other’s society, and no mutual comfort and assistance. They did not, in the words of Lord Stair, derive any solace or satisfaction from their relationship. The treatment by the husband of J as a child of the family, with the consequential acceptance of financial liability, is very virtuous, but does not, in my judgment, lead me to conclude that the resumed relationship constituted a functioning marital reconciliation.57.Mr Ewins KC relies solely on Category 2 facts. It is not part of his case that there are any Category 1 facts. I cannot say, on the evidence, that any material Category 2 facts subsequently arose, such as to furnish the conclusion that the inferential, evaluative, findings made by the court that the wife could not reasonably live with the husband and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, were wrong. 58.For there to be a rescission of the decree under Route A the law requires not merely that it is proved that the original court’s findings were erroneous but that the making of the decree was contrary to the justice of the case justifying the serious step of setting aside an order made by due process of law. This requires the error to be of such a degree that it would be demonstrably unjust to allow the decree to stand. 59.The evidence in this case comes nowhere near to demonstrating that the findings made on the making of decree nisi were wrong, let alone so wrong that to allow the decree to stand would be demonstrably unjust. The evidence shows that the parties had a highly defective marriage which was rightly put out of its misery by the making of decree nisi. For reasons that have not been explained, for 12 months after the pronouncement of the decree, but before the “reconciliation”, the wife did not apply for the decree nisi awarded in her favour to be made absolute. That delay is very puzzling, In November 2014 she and the husband resumed a toxic, damaging and unhealthy relationship which had none of the qualities of marriage and which cannot be described as a marital reconciliation. That relationship endured until March 2020 when it came to a final end. However, I am completely satisfied that at all times following the decree nisi their marriage was and remained irretrievably broken down.60.I conclude by pointing out that if there had been a genuine marital reconciliation between the parties in and after November 2014 then an application could have been made by the wife at any time thereafter under Route B for a rescission of the decree nisi on the grounds that the parties were reconciled and both consented to the rescission. The fact that the wife made no such application speaks volumes.61.For these reasons, the wife’s applications are dismissed and the husband’s application is granted. The decree will be made absolute forthwith, and the financial order will, at last, take full effect.