AW v RH (Financial Remedy Proceedings)
[2024] EWFC 64 (B)
AH v BH
7 June 2024
[2024] EWFC 125
Family Court
A wealthy couple divorced. They had a pre-nuptial agreement, but the judge decided the wife needed more money for housing and to support the children. The judge considered the pre-nup, but also that the wife would be raising the kids and had little money of her own. The husband had to pay a significant amount, but still kept most of his wealth. The husband got in trouble for not being upfront about his finances.
Key Facts
- •£50 million in assets, mostly in the husband's name; wife has £291,000.
- •5.5-year marriage with two children.
- •Pre-marital agreement (PMA) limiting the wife's financial claims.
- •Wife is the primary caregiver; husband offers a significantly smaller settlement than wife seeks.
- •Husband's undisclosed purchase of a property post-separation.
- •Husband's business significantly increased in value during the marriage.
Legal Principles
The court's overarching duty is to achieve a fair outcome, considering the s25 criteria of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, with the children's welfare as the first consideration.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s25
A PMA is a relevant factor but not the only one; its weight varies case by case. Factors such as duress, fraud, misrepresentation, undue pressure, and unconscionable conduct can affect its weight.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
PMAs should be given effect unless it would be unfair to do so, considering needs and compensation. 'Predicament of real need' is a key consideration, but its interpretation isn't strictly limited.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
Judicial discretion allows flexibility in assessing needs in PMA cases, with the approach depending on the facts of the case.
Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862
Outcomes
The FMH will be sold; the wife receives 56.7% (£2.75m) for a new property, plus £300,000 for stamp duty and renovations.
Balances the PMA with the wife's needs as primary caregiver, considering the husband's significant wealth and the wife's vulnerability.
The wife receives a capitalised lump sum of £710,000 for income needs over 10 years.
Capitalized maintenance is appropriate to reflect the PMA and achieve a clean break. The amount is based on a revised budget considering the family's past expenditure and future needs.
Husband pays child maintenance of £20,000pa until tertiary education, indexed to CPI.
Addresses the children's ongoing needs, consistent with the overall fairness of the award.
Husband pays school fees and nursery costs; extras shared equally.
Consistent with financial responsibility for the children's well-being.
No costs order made.
The wife's initial offers were unrealistic; the husband's offer was inadequate; and the husband's non-disclosure of the property purchase was unacceptable.