CC v LC
[2023] EWFC 52 (B)
B v B
13 August 2024
[2024] EWFC 311 (B)
Family Court
A husband didn't show up to court or share his money information. Because of this, the judge gave most of the money and assets to his wife. He also had to pay her huge legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Husband's application for financial remedies, but he failed to attend court or provide necessary financial disclosure.
- •Significant lack of disclosure from the husband, spanning over a year and a half.
- •Wife's solicitors had to undertake significant detective work to gather the husband's financial information.
- •Husband had previously engaged with court proceedings when it suited him.
- •Marriage of 13 years, with two children.
- •Sale of former family home yielded £1.2 million.
- •Wife purchased a property for £595,000 with a loan from her mother.
- •Husband withdrew significant sums from his pension.
- •Husband's company was dissolved shortly before the hearing.
- •Wife's costs amounted to £389,553 due to the husband's non-cooperation.
Legal Principles
Adverse inference can be drawn from non-disclosure and non-attendance.
Court's inherent powers and overriding objective.
Court's consideration of Section 25 factors in financial remedy cases.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 25.
Equal division of matrimonial assets as a starting point, subject to adjustment based on contributions and other factors.
Case law principles in financial remedy cases.
Clean break orders are favored where appropriate.
Case law principles in financial remedy cases.
Outcomes
Strong adverse inference drawn against the husband due to his non-disclosure.
Husband's complete failure to provide financial information despite court orders.
Wife awarded the majority of assets, including joint bank account and proceeds from watches.
Husband's non-cooperation, significant contributions from the wife and her family, and husband's potential for future income.
Nominal periodical payments ordered for five years.
Wife's modest income, husband's non-disclosure, and the needs of the wife and children.
100% transfer of husband's SIPP pension to wife.
Husband's significant drawdown from the pension and his lack of cooperation.
Husband ordered to pay wife's costs.
Husband's conduct caused the vast majority of the wife's legal costs.