KD v SD
[2024] EWFC 334 (B)
RN v TT
14 June 2024
[2024] EWFC 264 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced, but the husband waited nine years to ask for money from the wife. Because of this delay, and because the husband didn't help much financially during the marriage, the judge gave him only a small amount of money and part of the wife's pension. The judge considered how long the case had taken and how little the husband had contributed. The husband got some money, but not nearly as much as he wanted.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedies proceedings following divorce of TT (wife) and RN (husband) after a marriage lasting approximately 7.5 years.
- •Parties separated in 2011, divorce finalized in 2018, financial proceedings initiated in 2020.
- •Wife is a medical doctor with significant income and assets accumulated post-separation.
- •Husband has limited income from state benefits, history of mental health issues, and past fraudulent activity.
- •Significant delay in bringing financial proceedings, approximately 9 years after separation.
- •Absence of a full pension valuation report due to difficulties obtaining information from NHS Pensions.
- •Husband's claim for significant assets and pensions was made late and poorly evidenced.
Legal Principles
Court must consider all circumstances, with first consideration to children's welfare.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(1)
Court considers income, earning capacity, property, financial needs, standard of living, age, disability, contributions, and conduct.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(2)
Court considers whether financial obligations should be terminated soon after decree.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25A
Inordinate delay in bringing claims can significantly reduce or eliminate an award; court critically examines explanations for delay and its impact on the respondent.
Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14
Needs must be generated by the relationship with the husband to sustain a claim after many years of separation.
Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
Relevant period for marital acquest calculation is the period of cohabitation to separation.
MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649
Outcomes
Wife to pay husband a lump sum of £35,000.
Balances considerations of fairness, husband's limited contributions, significant delay, and wife's open offer.
100% pension sharing order of the wife's Aviva pension.
Accounts for potential increase in value of the NHS 1995 pension and aims for a fair outcome.
Clean break order with liberty to apply.
Reflects husband's lack of claim for spousal maintenance and the pursuit of a final resolution.
No order as to costs.
Considers FPR 2010 Part 28 and balances husband's lack of engagement with wife's late open offer and the pension information delays.