CH v TH (Financial Proceedings)
[2024] EWFC 135 (B)
SV v AV
7 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 86 (B)
Family Court
A wife sued her ex-husband for money after their divorce. The judge didn't believe the wife's story and said she didn't need any money from her ex because she's living with a new partner who supports her. The judge also said a pre-nuptial agreement was unfair, so it didn't matter.
Key Facts
- •Wife (SV) applied for financial remedies order after divorce from Husband (AV).
- •Dispute over date of separation (Wife: April 2018; Husband: March 2016).
- •Wife has three children from a previous relationship.
- •Numerous properties in dispute, with differing claims of ownership and beneficial interest.
- •Alleged pre-nuptial agreement, the validity and terms of which are disputed.
- •Wife claims Husband has undisclosed assets.
- •Husband diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety.
- •Intervenor (UV) involved, residing with Husband at the former marital home.
- •Significant legal costs incurred by all parties.
Legal Principles
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Considerations for financial remedies orders, including welfare of children (not applicable here), and all circumstances of the case.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Weight to be attached to pre-nuptial agreements (Radmacher v Granatino): Free will, undue influence, informed consent, legal advice, fairness, individual autonomy.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 427
PMA signed in a country where common, simply drafted, and signed without legal advice or disclosure: Court must consider this when determining its weight.
Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050
Presumption of advancement in property transfers between parent and child, rebuttable.
Burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion.
Lucas warning: Just because a party is not telling the truth about one aspect doesn't mean they're lying about everything.
Rental income from non-matrimonial property used to fund living expenses doesn't change its fundamental nature.
MCJ v MAJ [2016] EWHC 1672
Section 37 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Applications to set aside property dispositions.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Cohabitation: No strict definition; court considers all circumstances, including finances and time spent together.
Outcomes
Wife's claims dismissed.
No matrimonial assets; Wife cohabiting and financially supported by RK; pre-nuptial agreement deemed unfair and given no weight.
Clean break order.
Reflects dismissal of Wife's claims.
Separation date set as March 2016.
Husband's evidence more credible; Wife's evidence deemed unreliable and implausible.
Husband's beneficial ownership of properties limited to 16.6% interest in BR (former marital home).
Evidence supports that his father controlled property portfolio, and Husband’s interest in BR acquired post-separation.