MR v EF
[2024] EWFC 144 (B)
S v S
7 June 2023
[2023] EWFC 269 (B)
Family Court
A wealthy couple divorced. The judge decided when their marriage ended and ordered the husband to give the wife £2.6 million. The husband had to pay because he didn't offer a fair settlement early, and made false claims, costing both of them a lot of money in legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between Mr. and Mrs. S.
- •Long marriage (since 1983), two adult children.
- •Total assets of approximately £11,000,000.
- •Disagreement over date of separation (Mr. S claimed 2010, Mrs. S disputed this).
- •Mr. S's employment in Germany, resulting in significant earnings.
- •Mrs. S's financial dependence on Mr. S throughout the marriage.
- •Significant legal costs incurred by both parties (£550,000 total).
- •Mr. S had multiple extramarital affairs throughout the marriage.
- •Mrs. S took out a loan to fund litigation and living expenses.
Legal Principles
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 applies in financial remedy proceedings.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
In long marriages, the starting point is usually a broadly equal division of assets, with adjustments for needs and other factors.
Case law and common practice in financial remedy cases.
The court must consider all circumstances of the case when determining a fair distribution of assets.
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
The court has discretion to adopt either a scientific/formulaic approach or a broader fairness approach when dividing assets.
Rossi v Rossi [2006] EWHC 1482 (Fam), Jones v Jones [2011] FCR 242, Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306
The court has a duty to impose a clean break as soon as just and reasonable.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Part 28 of the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 28A and Civil Procedure Rules Part 44 apply to costs orders.
Family Procedure Rules, Civil Procedure Rules
Outcomes
The date of separation was determined to be September 2021.
The judge preferred Mrs. S's version of events and found Mr. S's claims lacked credibility.
Mr. S ordered to pay Mrs. S a lump sum of £2.6 million.
Broadly equal division of assets, with adjustments for Mr. S's termination package and other factors (legal costs, capital gains tax, Mrs. S's loan interest).
Mrs. S entitled to interest on loans taken for litigation and living expenses.
Mr. S's actions (cancelling Mrs. S's credit card, cancelling standing orders, and refusing to tax her car) contributed to her need to take out a loan.
Costs order in favour of Mrs. S to be determined later.
Mr. S's failure to make a realistic offer until the third day of the hearing and his pursuit of a dishonest case.