S v S
[2023] EWFC 269 (B)
Susan Nancy Baker v Andrew Hartill Baker
11 August 2023
[2023] EWFC 136
Family Court
A wife sued her ex-husband claiming he hid millions. The judge didn't believe her, but did make the husband pay the wife a large sum of money because he was dishonest throughout the case. The husband’s dishonest behaviour meant the wife didn’t have to pay his legal fees.
Key Facts
- •The wife, 75, and husband, 74, were married in 1986 and separated around 2000 (wife claims 2013).
- •They executed a separation agreement in New York in 2015.
- •The husband is in poor health, lacking capacity to conduct proceedings (established by Dr. Rogers' report).
- •The wife's net assets are approximately £5.8 million; the husband's visible assets are about £5.6 million.
- •The wife claims a £9.34 million lump sum based on the 2015 agreement; the husband contests this.
- •The wife alleges the husband has undisclosed assets of at least $35 million.
- •The main issue is whether the husband has hidden assets; specifically from Envigo and Lediba.
Legal Principles
The court must consider whether a change in circumstances makes a separation agreement manifestly unjust.
Radmacher v Granatino [2011] 1 AC 534
Adverse inferences regarding hidden assets must be reasonable and based on evidence.
NG v SG [2012] 1 FLR 1211
A lie by a party does not automatically mean the fact in issue is decided adversely to that party; corroborating evidence is needed.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
When assessing a separation agreement, the court should approach it similarly to an application to vary a consent order.
BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87
The court considers the conduct of the parties when making costs orders.
FPR 28.3(6)
Costs orders should be objectively reasonable and not unduly severe.
FPR 28.3(7)(f)
Outcomes
The wife's claim for £9.34 million is rejected.
The court finds insufficient evidence to support the wife's claim that the husband has hidden assets of $35 million.
The husband is ordered to pay a lump sum of £1,633,795 to the wife.
This reflects the capital payments promised in the separation agreement and accounts for the husband's poor conduct. Arrears of maintenance under the separation agreement are not enforced, but those from the maintenance pending suit order will be enforced.
The husband is to pay the wife’s costs to the tune of £200,000, plus 50% of Dr Rogers’ fees.
This reflects the husband's abysmal litigation conduct.
No further maintenance payments are required.
Considering the parties' respective financial positions, further payments would be unjust.