VT v LT
[2023] EWFC 256 (B)
IN v CH
8 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 233
Family Court
A wealthy couple is divorcing. The husband wanted the wife out of their expensive house, and the wife wanted to sell their expensive yacht to help pay the mortgage. The judge said the wife didn't own part of the house, and that they can't sell the yacht without the company that actually owns it involved. The judge ordered the house to be sold, but the wife and kids can stay there until it sells, and the husband will pay for their new place.
Key Facts
- •High-value financial remedy proceedings ancillary to divorce.
- •Husband applied to terminate Wife's home rights in £42 million matrimonial home (mortgage of £27 million).
- •Wife applied for immediate sale of a €35.5 million yacht, with proceeds to partially discharge the mortgage.
- •Dispute over Wife's beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, impacting the termination of her home rights.
- •Legal ownership of the yacht vested in a company, AB Limited, in which the Husband held 90% share.
- •Significant dispute over the Husband's financial resources and the veracity of his financial disclosures.
- •Three children, aged 9, 14, and 16, live with the Wife in the matrimonial home.
Legal Principles
Termination of home rights under s.33(3)(e) of the Family Law Act 1996 is not possible if the wife holds a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home.
RA v KS [2023] EWFC 102(B)
Common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel may establish a beneficial interest in land.
Case law cited by both parties, including Thompson v Humphrey [2008] 1 FLR and Winter & Anor v Winter & Anor [2027] EWCA Civ 699
Section 33(6) FLA 1996 outlines factors to be considered when determining applications for orders relating to the matrimonial home.
Family Law Act 1996, s.33(6)
The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 applies to disputes between husband and wife regarding property ownership.
Married Women’s Property Act 1882
Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.20.2(1)(c)(v) may grant the court power to order the sale of assets, but this requires consideration of case law interpretation.
Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.20.2(1)(c)(v), BR v VT [2015] EWHC 2727(Fam), WS v HS [2018] EWFC 11, SR v HR [2018] 2 FLR 843
Outcomes
Wife's claim of beneficial interest in the matrimonial home rejected.
Wife's inconsistent statements in Form E, questionnaire, and solicitor's letter, combined with her signature on a Consent to Mortgage and Waiver of Rights document, undermined her credibility.
Wife's application for conduct of the yacht sale rejected.
Legal ownership of the yacht rested with AB Limited, not the parties, preventing the court's jurisdiction under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882. The court also did not find sufficient grounds to exercise powers under FPR 2010 r.20.2(1)(c)(v) without AB Limited being a party.
Husband's application to terminate Wife's home rights granted, but with conditions.
Considering factors under s.33(6) FLA 1996, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, allowing the Wife and children to remain until completion or earlier agreement to move to rental accommodation. The court considered the Husband's financial circumstances, the Wife's housing needs, and the children's well-being.