WX v HX
[2023] EWFC 279 (B)
BP v AP (financial remedies – final hearing)
19 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 206 (B)
Family Court
A couple fought over a successful business after their divorce. The wife claimed the husband cheated her out of her share. The judge found the wife's claims were not proven. The husband gets the business but it's heavily in debt. The wife gets the house. Both sides acted unreasonably during the legal process but neither had to pay more money in legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Wife (49) and Husband (59) separated in May 2017 after a 19-year cohabitation/marriage.
- •They have three children together, two of whom live with the wife.
- •Dispute over ownership and profits of the husband's business, a successful sports content creation company.
- •Wife alleges the husband froze her out of the business and hid income.
- •Husband alleges wife engaged in secret deals that led to costly litigation.
- •Extensive litigation in Family Court and High Court.
- •Wife seeks a £1.45 million lump sum and transfer of the family home.
- •Husband proposes a clean break, with wife retaining the family home and husband the business.
Legal Principles
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors must be considered when making financial remedy orders.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Financial misconduct, such as the depreciation or destruction of matrimonial assets, can be considered if 'gross and obvious'.
Miller/McFarlane, Martin v Martin, Norris v Norris, R v B and Capita Trustees
The welfare of any child of the family is the first consideration of the court.
Section 25(1) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Costs orders are generally not made in financial remedy proceedings unless a party's conduct warrants it (FPR 2010 rule 28.3).
Family Procedure Rules 2010
Outcomes
Wife to retain the family home; Husband to retain the business.
Husband's business is inextricably linked to his personal goodwill and is heavily encumbered by debt. Wife's claims were found to be unrealistic and unsupported by evidence. A clean break was deemed the fairest solution given the circumstances.
Wife's claim for a £1.45 million lump sum rejected.
Wife's claims lack evidentiary support. The business had limited liquidity, and the husband’s liabilities exceeded the business assets.
Wife's 70% shareholding in Company B transferred to the husband.
The court found the shareholding was held on trust for the benefit of both parties, and the husband was better positioned to manage and benefit from the business.
Wife's application for further costs against the husband rejected.
While the wife's conduct was unreasonable in contesting the case, the husband's pre-hearing offer was not advantageous enough to warrant further costs, and the wife's actions were deemed unlikely to cause further costs.