Key Facts
- •High-net-worth divorce case with total assets of £132 million.
- •Husband transferred £80 million in assets to wife in 2017 for tax planning purposes.
- •Wife also received shares in husband's Australian farming business (Ardenside Angus) in 2017.
- •Judge awarded wife 40% (£45 million) and husband 60% (£67 million) of the £112 million deemed matrimonial assets.
- •Wife appealed, arguing the 2017 assets were her separate property.
- •Husband cross-appealed, arguing the 2017 assets and Ardenside Angus were not matrimonial property.
Legal Principles
Sharing principle in high-net-worth divorce cases; focus on source of assets, not title.
White v White [2001] 1 AC 596; Miller/McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618; Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] 1 FLR 1246; K v L [2012] 1 WLR 306; Hart v Hart [2018] 2 WLR 509; XW v XH [2020] 4 WLR 22
Matrimonialisation: when non-matrimonial property can be treated as matrimonial.
K v L [2012] 1 WLR 306; Hart v Hart [2018] 2 WLR 509
Relevance of nuptial agreements and autonomy; limited to formal agreements governing financial arrangements on divorce.
Radmacher v Granatino [2011] 1 AC 534
Outcomes
Wife's appeal dismissed; Husband's appeal allowed.
The judge's application of the sharing principle was flawed. The transfer of assets to the wife did not change their non-matrimonial character. A fair application of the sharing principle, considering the source of assets, would result in a significantly lower award for the wife.
Remitted for determination of wife's needs.
The court could not fairly determine the wife's needs without evidence and a proper assessment. Moor J, if available, is best placed to undertake this.