O v O
[2023] EWFC 161 (B)
Dmitry Tsvetkov v Elsina Khayrova
4 August 2023
[2023] EWFC 130
Family Court
A rich couple divorced, and the wife lied a lot during the divorce. Even though the wife was dishonest, the judge split their money equally because the husband had a higher earning potential. The judge also made the details of the divorce public because of the wife's dishonesty.
Key Facts
- •High-value financial remedy proceedings (~£48 million assets)
- •Wife (W) seeks 50%, Husband (H) seeks 60/40 split
- •Extensive litigation history, including 11 court hearings and 21 sworn statements
- •W repeatedly lied to H and the court, omitting material information in Form E and providing false information regarding jewellery
- •H found to be generally truthful, although untruthful in other proceedings
- •Assets include properties in UK, Dubai, and Cyprus, bank accounts, investments, jewellery, cars, and art
- •Significant computational issues regarding asset valuation, add-backs, and liability genuineness
- •H placed assets in W's name to protect them from creditors
- •Potential tax ramifications regarding UK residency and income from Stirakia (Russian coal mine)
- •Potential liabilities include substantial tax liabilities and ongoing litigation with Magdeevs in Cyprus
- •H's income significantly higher than W's
- •W's conduct included concealing jewellery, collaborating with Magdeevs, blocking asset sales, and failing to apply funds to mortgage
- •H claims financial losses due to W's conduct and loss of access to financial institutions
Legal Principles
Conduct under s25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is considered if inequitable to disregard; high threshold for relevance.
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115, TT v CDS [2020] EWCA Civ 1215
Beneficial ownership in financial remedy proceedings is usually irrelevant between spouses, except where third parties are involved or tax implications exist.
Tinker v Tinker [1970] 2 WLR 331
Add-back principle applies where assets are wantonly or recklessly dissipated; high threshold for application.
M v M [1995] 2 FCR 321
Court's active case management empowers it to determine which issues need investigation and can prevent reliance on conduct claims at trial if threshold not met.
FPR 2010 1.1, 1.4, RM v TM [2020] EWFC 41
Open justice principles must be balanced against the right to privacy; anonymity should only be granted if demonstrably in the public interest.
Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30, Clibbery v Allen [2002] Fam 261, Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2011] 1 FLR 1427, McCartney v Mills McCartney [2008] 1 FLR 1508, Crowther v Crowther [2021] EWFC 88
Outcomes
50/50 split of assets
Overall fairness considering W's conduct, asset reattribution, and H's higher earning capacity.
Add-back of assets concealed by W
Findings of fact establishing W's possession or control of assets, not solely based on Vaughan v Vaughan add-back principles.
W to bear 50% of potential tax liabilities
Equitable sharing of risk arising during the marriage.
Specific financial orders regarding properties, jewellery, lump sum payments, child maintenance, and ongoing litigation
Fair distribution of assets and liabilities, addressing specific disputes and conduct issues.
Judgment to be published with party names
W's serious litigation misconduct, prior publicity, and the public interest in transparency outweigh privacy concerns; balancing of Articles 8 and 10.