The High Court has delivered a judgement in a high-stakes financial remedies case, grappling with the complex task of dividing a multi-million-pound fortune that a husband claimed had been devastated by war.
Facts:
The wife (W) is in her late 30s and did not work during the marriage. She had been a student and a model when the parties met. The husband (H) is in his mid-60s and had been a successful businessman with a pre-marital wealth estimated to have been in excess of £565m circa 2007. However, H’s wealth reportedly collapsed as a result of a recent war in his home country.
They had three children and began cohabiting in the mid-2000s, although the former couple only got married in 2018 and moved to London in the early 2010s. W told H that she wanted a separation in late 2021, although the couple attempted to reconcile, leading to a withdrawal of her proceedings in
May 2022. The parties separated in April 2023 and made a joint application for divorce. The wife issued an application for financial remedies.
H moved away for tax advantages, leading W to make the claim that she would necessarily become the children’s primary carer, even though the children are in boarding school.
The central issue was the valuation of the H's remaining assets, which were primarily his businesses in a war-torn country. W's expert valued the assets at +£98.4m, while H's expert valued them at -£78m. W also accused H of being dishonest and of engaging in a strategy to defeat her claim.
Decision:
The High Court decided to divide the divorcing couple's assets, valued at approximately £38.5m, on a broadly equal basis. The wife was awarded a lump sum of £20m, and the husband was left with assets valued at around £18.5m. The Judge concluded that H's wealth, while significantly diminished by the war, had not been obliterated and that the assets should be shared fairly, accounting for the wife's future role as the primary caregiver.
The Court found H to be an unreliable witness and concluded that he had engaged in a "strategy to do down the wife throughout this litigation" process. The Judge did not trust the H's low valuation of his own assets or his claims of financial distress. As a direct result, the Court decided to notionally reattribute the assets the husband had transferred to his employees. The reasoning here was that even though the transfers were legally binding and could not be undone by the Court, H's improper purpose in making them meant he should be treated as if he still owned those assets for the purposes of dividing the marital wealth. It was found that the transfers from H, particularly a 20% transfer to A shortly before a large dividend payment, were intended to defeat W’s claim, rather than to incentivise the employees.
Implications:
This case is a reminder that family courts take a dim view of financial manoeuvres designed to alter the playing field. In short, a spouse cannot chip away at the marital assets in the hope of leaving their partner short.
This judgement serves as a powerful warning to divorcing parties to be truthful and transparent. While "conduct" is rarely used to penalise a spouse in a financial remedy case, this judgement demonstrates how one party's lack of candour can directly and adversely affect the Court's decisions on asset valuation and division. The Judge was not only sceptical of H's evidence but used that scepticism to make findings against him, most notably by notionally reattributing the shares and dividends he had transferred to his employees.
The key implication is that the Court will not be deterred by a party who attempts to evade disclosure or artificially diminish their wealth. By refusing to provide a clear financial picture, H lost the benefit of the doubt, and the Court made decisions that were likely less favourable to him than if he had been fully transparent.
