Case No. NP20D02617

18.There have been a large number of interlocutory hearings. The first appointment took place before Mostyn J on 5 February 2021. Paragraph 14 of the order reads:“The applicant confirms that issues of conduct are relevant only to the question of whether or not she freely entered into the [PNA] with a full appreciation of its implications”. 19.The directions made included the appointment of Dr Clifford as a single joint expert to give her opinion:“a) As to whether the applicant was subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour in 2018 during the period in which the separation agreement/post nuptial agreement was negotiated and signed; and if sob) What the impact of such behaviour would likely have been on the applicant’s psychological state, specifically (but not limited to) her mental freedom to enter in freely into that agreement”.20.For various reasons, caused largely by the failings of W’s then solicitors, the expert’s report was not progressed and subsequently Dr Jones was appointed in place of Dr Clifford. 21.At a pre-trial review on 2 February 2022, Mostyn J directed that W serve a schedule of the findings sought by her and which she said should be determined at the final hearing and the respondent should file his response. In her schedule dated 10 February 2022, W set out that she seeks the following findings as to the controlling and coercive behaviour she says she was subjected to by H: i)Verbal abuse, shouting and screaming including threats of physical violence;ii)Denigration, belittling and demeaning W to make her feel subordinate;iii)Financial control to make W feel dependent on H;iv)Ignoring, sulking and withdrawing affection if W refused to do as she was instructed, including to have sexual intercourse with H;v)The behaviour described at iv) above was then followed by showering W with affection and gifts when she did bend to his will (known as ‘love bombing’);vi)Gaslighting her: refusing to acknowledge instances of physical violence or his coercive and controlling behaviour and suggesting that any concerns expressed by W were made-up so as to undermine W’s own understanding of the abuse and to erode her sense of lived reality and personal autonomy, resulting in a distorted sense of reality according to him;vii)Controlling the running of the family home, regulating her everyday behaviour and coercing W into how exactly to run the family home and limiting W’s ability to live freely in the home;viii)Control of W’s life and time outside the home including persistent requests for W to allow the respondent to place a tracker on her phone, not allowing her to have hobbies or attend clubs (despite him doing so) as he said this took time away from him, and not allowing her to do anything which she had not sought his prior approval for by noting it on a shared calendar in the kitchen of the family home;ix)Restricting W’s contact with her wider support network, limiting or controlling interactions, telling W that her family and friends didn’t care about her, telling W that she must not discuss their relationship with any third parties and restricting W’s access to her mobile phone;x)Discouraging W from attending her church in order to restrict her time away from H, limit her independence and isolate her from a source of support;xi)Pressuring W to drink alcohol with him, even when she indicated that she did not wish to, and putting pressure on W to not eat her supper until he was also ready to do so, regardless of how late he returned home from work or how hungry she was;xii)Restricting W’s ability to travel, especially to visit her family and friends by discouraging her from doing so and then, if she did, ignoring her or criticising her for doing so on her return resulting in her feeling intimidated, downtrodden and low in confidence;xiii)Driving recklessly with the aim of scaring and intimidating W if she disagreed with him or made mistake when giving the respondent directions; andxiv)The above behaviours were all exacerbated by H’s heavy drinking.22.H’s response was to deny the allegations and to argue that it mattered not whether they were true as there was no causal connection between the allegations and W’s state of mind at the time that she negotiated and entered into the agreement. He argued that W entered into the PNA freely and with a full understanding of its implications. 23.On the first day of the hearing, I was required to deal with various preliminary issues including:i)Further participation directions. Mostyn J, as the allocated judge, had directed that the hearing should take place remotely. At the pre-trial review, W had confirmed to the judge that she was content for H to be able to see her on screen giving her evidence but by the time of the final hearing she had changed her mind and said that she was worried about giving evidence in front of him. There was no satisfactory explanation for this development. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that H was not unduly prejudiced if he could hear but not see W and I particularly bore in mind that if this had been an in-person hearing, W would in all probability have been screened from H. I therefore acceded to W’s request that H be not permitted to visually observe her evidence. In addition, I agreed to allow W a break when she wanted and the court took a break at her request approximately every 45 minutes during her evidence; andii)Mostyn J had permitted W to call as a similar fact witness a previous girlfriend of H. However, notice of her intended calling was given by W excessively late and the judge prohibited W from relying on the evidence if she was unable to make the former partner available. Just a few days before the final hearing began, W served a long statement from the witness containing a whole raft of new allegations. I refused to admit that statement or to allow evidence to be given of its contents as it was thoroughly unfair to H as he had been deprived of the opportunity to call evidence in reply. I gave W the opportunity of applying to adjourn that part of the evidence if she so wished, but no such application was made. Accordingly, the evidence of that witness was confined to those matters which had been raised in W’s section 25 statement in November 2021.