MS v FS (No. 3)
[2023] EWFC 245 (B)
G v G (Confiscation Order: Conduct)
26 January 2023
[2023] EWFC 16 (B)
Family Court
A wife and husband are divorcing. The husband had committed a serious crime and owes a lot of money. The judge gave the wife the house and a larger share of the husband's pension to help her and her children. Because the husband owes so much money, the judge did not make the husband pay her extra cash.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy case between Mrs. G (Wife) and Mr. G (Husband), heard over three days in November 2022.
- •Husband previously convicted of fraud and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
- •Parties separated in March 2021; Wife petitioned for divorce in July 2021.
- •Significant assets include three properties (former matrimonial home, London property, Scottish property) and Husband's NHS pension.
- •Husband subject to a Confiscation Order of £411,983.60 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
- •Disputes exist regarding ownership of the London and Scottish properties.
- •Wife seeks transfer of former matrimonial home, lump sum, and share of pension.
- •Husband's mother (Mrs. AG) is a significant figure with potential interests in the properties, but not a party to the proceedings.
Legal Principles
Financial remedy orders must consider all circumstances of the case under s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s25
POCA and MCA do not take priority over each other; courts must consider both acts.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA)
Findings of the Crown Court are binding as far as they go, unless appealed.
Crown Court proceedings
In financial remedy cases, it is not appropriate to make an order that reduces assets available to satisfy a confiscation order unless sufficient assets remain.
Stodgell v Stodgell [2009] EWCA Civ 243
Outcomes
Husband's interest in the former matrimonial home transferred to the Wife.
Wife and children need security; Husband's alternative proposal was deemed unrealistic.
Husband's pension to be divided unequally (two-thirds to Wife, one-third to Husband).
To provide Wife with prospect of paying off mortgage and some retirement security, acknowledging Husband's likely continued support from mother.
No significant lump sum payment ordered.
Insufficient assets available after considering the Confiscation Order; risk of Husband's imprisonment.
Husband to pay existing ordered costs.
Standard cost order in these proceedings.