NW v BH [2024] EWFC 118 (B)
Stowe Family Law Senior Associate Siobhan Vegh, assisted by Senior Associate Natalie Nero and Solicitor Rebecca Sutton, instructed Barrister Philip Perrins of 1GC Family in a divorce and financial remedies case, representing the applicant Wife.
Background to the case
The parties were married for three years, 2018-2021, after a ten-year period of cohabitation from 2008. Divorce proceedings were issued in March 2022, followed by a conditional order in May 2023.
The wife had one son from a previous relationship who became part of the family, and the parties had three children together. These three children were still minors at the time of the final hearing. The marriage ended acrimoniously, and W fled the family home with the children. Later she was refused re-entry and was forced to find alternative accommodation.
The parties lived in four houses through their marriage, which became complicating factors for the financial transactions of the case. H had a variety of occupations and business endeavours.
At various points through the relationship, the parties appeared to have been financially assisted by W’s parents by way of loans to protect H’s business interests. These alleged loans, and alleged repayments, were a key feature of the case.
There were several other complicating factors, including inheritance received by H during the marriage; business interests, including third party interests; property valuation disputes and an intervention from H’s mother during proceedings. However, importantly, H’s repeated non-disclosure of assets, flawed evidence, and refusal to cooperate caused extensive issues.
This was a needs case. Although there seemed to be multiple assets, there was minimal liquid capital to rehouse the parties and the dependent children.
Wife’s Case
W made an open offer on 18th January 2024, seeking transfer of the family home into her sole name. She offered to transfer her shares in the couple’s property company to H, and in return would be released from her personal guarantee under the loan agreement for this company.
She requested indemnity from H against any claims from H’s mother for alleged historical loans.
Each party after this to retain the assets and liabilities in their sole names. No cost order was claimed.
Husband’s Case
H also sought transfer of the family home to his sole name, and his mother to register a charge against the property for £185,000 plus an additional £100,000 representing his loans for his legal fees.
He requested W retain her interests in three of the companies the couple shared interest in, followed by a clean break.
At a later point, H revised his offer, seeking to pay £230,000 to W if she transferred the family home to his sole name, and relinquished her share in the active property business.
Husband’s mother
The husband alleged his mother had loaned funds towards the purchase of properties, the parties had moved several times since and the husband sought to allege that his mother should be repaid before the matrimonial assets were divided between the parties. The evidence of the mother’s alleged loan was lacking at best and the Judge noted that the two had clearly been ‘conferring’ and her interference in the case was ‘wholly unjustified’.
Determination
As this was a needs case, the court’s primary aim was to ensure financial stability for both parties and the dependent children. Difficulties arose with quantifying the parties’ assets, due to non-disclosure and complications of business interests, the role of third parties and lack of cohesive evidence.
Judge Taylor questioned H’s evidence, noting lack of compliance, particularly regarding statements of truth. There were multiple examples of non-disclosure, allowing the court to make adverse inferences about assets, according to principles set out in NG v SG (Appeal: Non-disclosure) [2011] EWHC 3270. Much of the evidence had been poorly prepared, and H’s statements were often conflicting. The Judge summarised that he found H and his supporters to be ‘far removed from the truth’ and his proposals to be ‘divorced from the realities of the likely outcome’.
Recorder Rhys Taylor had to decide how the parties’ needs could be met, based on the evidence before him, therefore ‘cutting cloth’ more sparingly than W had wished, and the court would have ordered had there been more capital available in the matrimonial pot.
He ordered that the parties retained their respective business interests, excepting the Wife’s transfer of her interest the property business. Although the Family Home was to be put up for sale, the Wife was given occupation and full conduct of the sale. Upon sale, the Husband will receive £100,000 of net proceeds, with the remainder going to the Wife – a division of 75.76% to Wife and 24.24% to Husband. A clean break was ordered thereafter.
H was submitted to a costs order of £20,000 due to his non-disclosure and misconduct during the proceedings.
You can read the full judgment here.