VT v LT
[2023] EWFC 256 (B)
CH v TH (Financial Proceedings)
26 April 2024
[2024] EWFC 135 (B)
Family Court
A couple got divorced, and the judge had to figure out how to fairly split their money and property. There was a lot of disagreement about how much money the husband made and what happened to some of their money from selling an old house. The judge decided to split their main home and business property and pensions equally. The husband's debts stayed with him, the wife's with her. Everyone gets to keep their house, and the judge thinks this is fair.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy final hearing concerning the divorce of CH (wife) and TH (husband).
- •Two children of the marriage: an adult son (N) and a 13-year-old daughter (R).
- •Significant disputes regarding the husband's earning capacity, the parties' housing needs, and the use of previous sale proceeds.
- •Assets included the wife's home (CR), a mixed commercial/residential property (AR) where the husband worked, a property (X) potentially owned by the wife or her father, and a previously sold property (RR).
- •Wife's proposal: CR, £207,600 lump sum, husband responsible for joint debts.
- •Husband's proposal: Wife keeps CR, husband keeps AR, wife pays £76,987 lump sum, 50% pension sharing order.
Legal Principles
Fair outcome based on section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (needs, sharing, compensation).
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Balance of probabilities for fact-finding, evidence-based assessment.
Case Law
Non-disclosure impacts resource assessment; court errs in favour of non-offending party.
Case Law
Clean break unless undue hardship.
Case Law
Treatment of debts to friends/family depends on likelihood of enforcement (P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 89).
P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 89
Family support is a gratuitous resource; clear evidence required (WC v HC (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 22).
WC v HC (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 22
Equal contributions presumed in long marriages.
Case Law
Outcomes
Wife keeps CR (with annex), husband keeps AR (commercial and residential).
Fair distribution of resources, meeting needs of both parties and children.
Equal pension sharing order.
Accrued during marriage, no reason for unequal division.
Personal debts remain with respective parties.
Husband better placed to handle debts due to business ownership and family support.
No lump sum for future child maintenance, conventional approach used.
Not necessary given circumstances.
No order as to costs.
Outcome deemed fair without cost implications.