CH v TH (Financial Proceedings)
[2024] EWFC 135 (B)
GW v GH
12 October 2023
[2023] EWFC 298 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced after a long marriage. The wife is very sick and has high legal bills. The judge split their money and savings almost equally, but gave the wife extra money for medical care and reduced the amount the husband had to pay for her high legal costs because they were too expensive.
Key Facts
- •Applicant Wife (GW) and Respondent Husband (GH) cohabited since 2003, married in 2009, separated in 2021.
- •They have two children, A and B.
- •The Applicant was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive cancer.
- •The parties had a previous high-cost Children Act litigation resulting in a shared care arrangement.
- •Significant legal costs were incurred by both parties in both the financial remedy and Children Act proceedings.
- •The main assets are the former matrimonial home (FMH), Property B, and Property C.
- •Disputes exist regarding the valuation of assets, recognition of debts (loans from Applicant's parents), and the use of trust funds for school fees.
Legal Principles
Court should consider all circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to children's welfare.
Section 25, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Objective is to achieve a fair outcome; no discrimination between husband and wife roles; sharing principle applies if assets exceed needs.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54
Balance of probabilities applies; burden of proof on the party asserting a position.
Legal costs should be considered; adjustment may be made if grossly disproportionate.
YC v ZC [2022] EWFC 137
In considering loans from family members, the court will determine whether the loans are 'hard' or 'soft' and should be considered a debt.
P v Q [2022] EWFC B9
Outcomes
2% cost of sale applied to all properties except Property C (1.7% used for Property C).
Based on evidence of actual costs of sale and valuations.
XYZ Trust assets not considered available for school fees.
Trustees have not made distributions, and it is unlikely they would given the number of beneficiaries and their stated priorities.
Property D and E not considered available assets.
Property D is the parents' home, non-matrimonial; Property E's ownership is uncertain and subject to inheritance and legal barriers.
Debt of £50,476 to Applicant's mother not recognized.
Lack of credible explanation for the arrangement and inconsistent with other evidence.
Debt of £51,370 for Property B recognized as a 'hard' loan; debt of £110,000 for Property C not recognized (considered a gift).
Applicant's evidence regarding Property B more persuasive; Property C loan lacked evidence of repayment plan and was overshadowed by inheritance tax planning.
Capital divided approximately equally, with adjustments for legal fees, medical expenses, and school fees.
Balances the needs of both parties while accounting for the significant disparity in legal costs and the Applicant's health.
Applicant's legal fees reduced by £100,000 due to disproportionate costs.
Costs were grossly disproportionate to the outcome of the case.
Pension sharing order of £71,406 (approximately 25%) transferred to the Respondent.
Balances the Applicant's uncertain health and need for potential early pension access with the Respondent's lower pension provision and future earning potential.