Date published: 6/2/26

Author: Alice Heath 

Sandra Ozturk v Yilmaz Ozturk [2025] EWFC 333 (B)

In cases around financial matters on divorce, a properly completed Form E, the first statement of financial disclosure, underpins the entire process. The case of Ozturk v Ozturk exemplifies how far courts will go to ensure this crucial procedural requirement is complied with.

Background

In this case, Mr Ozturk had ignored multiple requests from Ms Ozturk’s solicitors and directions by the court to file his Form E. Mr Ozturk was representing himself in the proceedings. He failed to attend the first and second hearings in the proceedings, the deliberateness of such substantiated by Mr Ozturk having told his wife and their son he had no intention of engaging with the proceedings. This sequence of events led Judge Moreton to impose a 28 day suspended custodial sentence at a hearing on 8 May 2025, which essentially meant that Mr Ozturk would be sent to prison if he did not comply with the order to file his Form E within 28 days of service of that order, so by 17 June 2025. Alongside this, Mr Ozturk was ordered to pay £2210.40 to Ms Ozturk’s solicitors for her costs with them.

Whilst Mr Ozturk made payment of Ms Ozturk’s legal fees, he did not file his Form E, and Ms Ozturk then applied to activate the suspended prison sentence.

The Judgement

Mr Ozturk attended the hearing of Ms Ozturk’s application to activate the prison sentence on 7 October 2025, but had still failed to file his Form E in line with the order. At this hearing, Mr Ozturk raised several issues, first and foremost that he did not understand the order from 8 May as he could not read English. Prior to and at the 8 May hearing, Mr Ozturk was given and declined multiple opportunities to use an interpreter at court, and at no point during proceedings had he requested that the documents he had been sent be translated into his first language, Turkish. His Honour Judge Moreton also highlighted that Mr Ozturk had sufficient comprehension of the May order to comply with part of it, with Mr Ozturk having paid the required funds to Ms Ozturk’s solicitors. This, coupled with Mr Ozturk’s experience of running a business in England, having access to people who could translate the documents for him and his very presence at court in line with the order led Judge Moreton to conclude Mr Ozturk had a sufficient level of comprehension of the May order.

Furthermore, HHJ Moreton found Mr Ozturk’s non-compliance with the court order to be ‘wilful’. During Mr Ozturk’s oral evidence, he asserted that the English court did not have power to deal with the divorce as the parties were married in Turkey. However, Judge Moreton found Mr O’s evidence in relation to this argument to be ‘extremely unsatisfactory’, given his failure to raise this position at previous hearings. Furthermore, other assertions by Mr O such as ‘It is my money’ were found by Judge Moreton to suggest that Mr O did not view Ms Ozturk as having any claim against his assets. Judge Moreton found Mr Ozturk’s attitude towards the court and his finances more generally to be a more likely explanation for his failure to comply with the order, than his argument of not being able to understand the documents.

Judge Moreton concluded that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Ozturk understood what was required of him, placing him in breach. Thus, Judge Moreton activated the order of imprisonment immediately. He found that there was no indication Mr Ozturk had any intention of filing his Form E and completing a full financial disclosure, and therefore there was no merit in further delaying the sentence.

The Implications

The Form E is the foundation of any financial dispute, and Ozturk v Ozturk highlights that wilfully avoiding full and frank disclosure can place your liberty at risk. The standard warning on court orders, that: ‘if you do not comply with this order, you may be held to be in contempt of court and you may be sent to prison, be fined, or have your assets seized’, is no empty threat.

Secondarily, the case exemplifies that even parties who represent themselves are subject to the same rules as represented clients. Regardless of representation, both parties have a duty of full and frank disclosure, without which neither the court can impose a judgment, nor can the parties reach an informed settlement. A final financial order, whether by consent or imposed by a court, requires a transparent and complete picture of each party’s financial position, and a properly completed Form E is the first crucial step in building that picture.

Contact Ketley Miller Joels Today

If you are looking for an elite family lawyer in London to support with your divorce or dissolution, get in touch with us today to schedule a no-obligation consultation with our team.