RM v WP
[2024] EWFC 191 (B)
NT v RY
16 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 213 (B)
Family Court
A husband and wife divorced after a short marriage. The wife had a house and the husband accused her of hiding money. The judge believed the wife more and said that both of them had enough money. They split their money unevenly, favouring the wife slightly, and didn't make each other pay any more money. Everyone gets to keep what they have.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy application by husband (H) against wife (W).
- •Marriage lasted 4 years and 8 months, ending in autumn 2015.
- •One child of the marriage, L, aged 9 at the time of the hearing.
- •Both parties work in the same job, earning roughly £70,000 per year.
- •Wife owns the former family home valued at £340,000 (net £238,957).
- •Husband owns a property valued at £270,000 (net £55,900).
- •Allegations of non-disclosure by the husband.
- •Husband sought a clean break with a lump sum payment of £42,000.
- •Wife sought a clean break with a lump sum payment of £60,000.
Legal Principles
Sharing principle: Matrimonial assets acquired during the marriage should be shared.
Higher courts' guidance on financial remedy orders
Needs principle: Parties' reasonable future needs should be met. Needs trump sharing if there is a conflict.
Higher courts' guidance on financial remedy orders
Compensation principle: Rarely applicable; not applicable in this case.
Higher courts' guidance on financial remedy orders
Non-disclosure: Court can draw inferences from available material, including undisclosed resources, judicial experience, and inherent probabilities, ensuring the non-disclosing party does not benefit.
Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482 and Presto v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34
Outcomes
No lump sum order in favour of either party.
Parties' needs are met; a clean break is ordered, with assets remaining as they are. Wife's current 58% share adequately reflects her greater contributions and husband's non-disclosure.
Clean break order as to income and capital.
To reflect the current asset distribution and the court's finding that a further division is unwarranted.