Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

EC (A Husband) v JC (A Wife)

[2024] EWFC 175 (B)
A couple divorced after a very expensive and stressful legal battle. The judge decided to give the wife more of the assets because she is the main carer for their twin boys and needs to be near their school. The husband has to pay her money each month until the children are older. The judge told both parents to stop fighting and work together for their children.

Key Facts

  • Final financial remedies hearing in a protracted and costly divorce case.
  • Parties married in 2011, separated in 2022. Husband is 60, wife is 58. Two 9-year-old twin boys.
  • Wife is primary carer of twins; husband has contact.
  • High legal costs for both parties (£151,000 for husband, £177,000 for wife, including significant litigation loans).
  • Main assets: Former matrimonial home (net equity £1,174,947) and husband's business, X Ltd (valued at £360,000, including cash reserves), in which wife holds a 30% stake.
  • Husband's income primarily from dividends from X Ltd; wife is a self-employed illustrator with an income of approximately £18,000 per annum.
  • Both parties have significant debts from litigation loans.
  • A painting sold at auction for £21,000, proceeds held by auctioneer.

Legal Principles

Financial remedies cases should aim for a fair outcome, considering the needs of the parties and the children. Departure from equality may be justified.

Inherent jurisdiction of the Family Court

Spousal maintenance orders are made considering the needs and resources of the parties. Global maintenance may be appropriate.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Court considers all assets when making financial orders. Non-matrimonial assets may be considered in meeting needs.

Inherent jurisdiction of the Family Court

Outcomes

Wife to receive £935,000 from the sale of the former matrimonial home; balance to the husband. Wife to transfer her 30% shareholding in X Ltd to the husband. Husband to provide an indemnity.

Departure from equality justified by husband's higher earning capacity, wife's role as primary carer, husband's higher mortgage capacity, and wife's greater housing needs (proximity to school).

Wife to receive the £21,000 from the sale of the painting and the husband's share to be reduced by £16,617 (CGT liability).

To further acknowledge the wife's needs and to account for the unnecessary CGT liability incurred by the husband's premature application for decree absolute.

Global spousal maintenance of £3000 per month (with a pound-for-pound reduction for child maintenance received), payable until the twins reach majority (nine years), linked to CPI.

Erratic child maintenance payments and wife's role as primary carer for the twins.

No order made regarding pensions.

Fault on both sides regarding litigation conduct.

No costs order made.

Culpable behavior on the part of both parties leading to disproportionate costs.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.