G v G (Confiscation Order: Conduct)
[2023] EWFC 16 (B)
MS v FS (No. 3)
23 October 2023
[2023] EWFC 245 (B)
Family Court
A husband and wife fought in court for years over money after a divorce. The wife cheated by faking documents, delaying the case. The judge said the wife must pay the husband a lot of money because of her dishonesty and the husband gets part of their house.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy application with a long and complicated history, originally filed in 2011.
- •Extraordinary delay due to the wife's fraudulent actions in forging documents related to the divorce and consent order.
- •Wife's late instruction of legal counsel impacted the hearing's smooth running.
- •Significant discrepancies and confusion regarding the bundles of evidence submitted to the court.
- •Wife's legal argument that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the husband's remarriage.
- •Wife's non-attendance at the final hearing due to claimed hospitalization.
- •Wife's alleged tampering with bank statements to support her claims.
- •Husband's disclosure of previous judgments to the wife's professional body (ACCA) and the police.
- •The existence of two properties: the family home and a rental property.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction in financial remedy applications after remarriage.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.28(3)
A party cannot benefit from their own fraudulent acts.
Sharland v Sharland [2014] UKSC 28, Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115
Capacity of a party to seek a transfer order against themselves.
Whitehouse-Piper v Stokes [2008] EWCA Civ 1049, Dart v Dart [1996] 2 FLR 286
Conduct in financial remedy proceedings.
Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130, TT v CDS (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1215
Assessing the credibility of a party with a history of fraud.
Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115
Outcomes
Dismissed wife's jurisdictional argument; the court has jurisdiction.
Wife's fraudulent actions deprived the husband of the opportunity to file a proper application before remarriage. The court can make orders transferring property even against the applicant's interests; a party cannot benefit from their fraud.
Husband is declared joint beneficial and legal owner of the family home.
Wife's fraudulent actions led to the property being solely in her name.
Wife to pay husband a lump sum of £150,354.
Needs-based award considering the parties' resources, earning capacity, conduct, and the husband's inability to purchase property with his share.
Wife to pay 50% of husband's costs on an indemnity basis.
Wife's unreasonable litigation conduct, including tampering with evidence.
Family home to be sold if lump sum is not paid by a specified date.
Ensuring the husband receives his share of the property.