JN v GN
[2023] EWFC 244 (B)
Wife v Husband
6 June 2023
[2023] EWFC 273 (B)
Family Court
A wife accused her husband of hiding money after their separation. The judge believed the wife and decided the husband had to give her the house, half his pension, and the value of a car because he had hidden his inheritance money. They are now financially separated.
Key Facts
- •Wife applied for financial relief in March 2019, focusing on the husband's assets.
- •Parties married September 9, 2020, separated in 2018 (dispute on reconciliation).
- •Wife obtained a restraining order in October 2019 on husband's assets (vehicles, property).
- •Husband failed to engage properly in proceedings, leading to delays and a committal application.
- •Husband received a significant inheritance (£244,847.62) during the marriage.
- •Husband sold a property next to the matrimonial home, transferring proceeds to his partner.
- •Wife alleges asset dissipation by the husband, husband claims debt repayment to loan sharks.
- •Husband's evidence deemed unreliable and shifty by the judge.
- •Wife's health issues (Fibromyalgia, Inflammatory Arthritis, PTSD etc.) and limited income.
- •Husband's income approximately £24,000 and works as a TV aerial subcontractor.
Legal Principles
Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Restraining orders on assets.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Factors for consideration in financial remedies.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Court's ability to draw inferences about a party's means based on available evidence.
Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482 and Baker v Baker
Proportionality in determining the appropriate course of action in financial remedy proceedings.
Outcomes
Matrimonial home transferred to the wife, contingent on securing husband's release from mortgage; otherwise, property to be sold, with wife retaining net equity.
Wife's needs, husband's conduct, and the wife's potential to obtain mortgage.
Wife awarded 50% share of husband's army pension (implementation costs shared equally).
Husband's asset dissipation and the need to provide for wife's needs; following W v H [2020] EWFC B10.
Wife awarded a lump sum payment equivalent to the value of the Ford Mustang (£23,275).
Husband's asset dissipation, ability to raise funds, and drawing inferences from his conduct (Moher v Moher).
Clean break order made between the parties.
To conclude the financial proceedings.
Original Section 37 order discharged.
The matter has been fully resolved.
Costs awarded to the wife against the husband (to be determined at a further hearing).
Husband's conduct.