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.