WX v HX
[2023] EWFC 279 (B)
NW v BH
23 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 118 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced, and there was a big fight over money. The husband was not honest about his finances. The judge decided that because the wife takes care of the kids, she needs most of the money. The husband gets some money from the sale of the house. The judge didn't believe the husband's stories about loans and inheritance because he didn't provide enough proof.
Key Facts
- •NW (wife) and BH (husband) cohabited since 2008, married in 2018, separated in 2021.
- •Significant factual disputes regarding historic family loans and inheritance.
- •Multiple companies owned by or involving the parties, with unclear ownership and financial dealings.
- •Valuation of a property (D Street) was a major point of contention, despite an initial agreement.
- •The husband and his supporters were found to be untruthful and unreliable.
- •The case was determined primarily based on the needs principle.
- •The wife was the primary caregiver for four children.
Legal Principles
Welfare of children is the first consideration in financial remedy proceedings.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.25(1)
Court must consider all circumstances of the case, including income, earning capacity, property, needs, obligations, standard of living, age, disability, contributions, and conduct.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.25(2)
Court should consider whether a clean break is appropriate.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.25A
Needs principle usually prevails over sharing principle when needs exceed the sharing principle outcome.
Charman v Charman (No 4)
Court can draw adverse inferences from materially deficient disclosure.
NG v SG (Appeal: Non-Disclosure), Moher v Moher
In determining facts, the court considers credibility of witnesses, documents, and inferences from evidence.
Re A (A Child)
Housing needs are a paramount consideration, especially with young children.
M v B, Piglowska v Piglowski, Butler v Butler
Mesher orders are rarely used due to disadvantages of maintaining financial connections post-separation.
Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli
Court considers the likelihood of wider family financial support but there's no obligation on third parties.
WC v HC, TL v ML
The court is entitled to hold the parties to concessions made during the proceedings, particularly those made with the assistance of counsel
Daniels v Walker
Outcomes
Family home awarded to the wife with vacant possession within 28 days; wife to pay husband £100,000 from net proceeds of sale.
Needs principle; wife is primary caregiver.
Wife to transfer shares in ABC Properties Ltd to the husband upon his providing an undertaking to indemnify her.
Fair division of assets; protects wife from potential liabilities.
Clean break upon delivery of family home.
Promotes finality and independence.
Husband's application to reduce the valuation of D Street rejected.
Parties had previously agreed on a valuation; husband's application was late and procedurally deficient; lack of transparency in marketing process.
Claims of significant loans from the husband's mother dismissed; most payments were likely inheritance distributions.
Lack of reliable documentary evidence, inconsistent testimonies, and unreliable accounting practices.
Husband's inheritance contribution considered, but not ring-fenced as needs cannot be met without recourse to those funds.
Balancing needs with fairness, considering the contribution of both parties' families.
XYZ Ltd treated as an income-producing asset, not a capital asset; husband's income significantly underestimated.
Husband's lifestyle inconsistent with declared income; lack of trust in his financial reporting.
Wife's needs partially met, husband to receive £100,000 from the sale of the property.
Limited assets; balancing needs and ensuring husband receives a portion.
Costs order against the husband limited to £20,000.
Husband's unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.