In this final judgment resulting from the financial remedy proceedings between Mr and Mrs Simon with Level intervening, Mr Justice Peel rehearses the ‘troubling’ history of the case, rejects submissions from Mr Simon about that history (para 9) and reflects on the involvement of the lawyers (para 12). He reaches provisional conclusions about motive (para 10) and potential remedies for Level (para 34).
But ultimately, after this ‘difficult and unusual case’ (Lady Justice King, para 108), Mr and Mrs Simon chose to invite the court to make no orders in relation to Mrs Simon’s current application (issued in 2016). In the event Mrs Simon chooses to issue a fresh application, Level’s status shall be considered at that time. No doubt this will be in the context of the Court of Appeal’s finding that where ‘the lender has become aware of steps which they believe to have been taken by the parties to conclude a settlement which has the appearance of defeating its ability to recover all or part of its debt, the lender should be entitled to be heard in whatever form is felt to be appropriate by the court’ (para 106).
Level’s position throughout has been that the husband and wife reached a collusive agreement to shut out the lender from being repaid. In those circumstances commentators may reach their own conclusions as to why a husband and wife, seven years after the start of proceedings, should take the highly unusual step of seeking a “no order” judgment from the court.
The costs of these proceedings will be determined in due course and other legal avenues remain available for Level to pursue.
Judgment: Lauren Belinda Simon v Paul Mark Simon - Find Case Law - The National Archives
Court of Appeal judgment: Simon v Simon & Anor | [2023] EWCA Civ 1048 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine