CG v SG
[2023] EWHC 942 (Fam)
WW v XX
11 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 330 (B)
Family Court
A husband and wife divorced. His main asset was his company. The judge decided how much it was worth and how much the wife should get to be fair. She’ll get the money in payments over several years, not all at once, because his company isn’t easy to sell quickly.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedies proceedings following divorce between WW (wife) and XX (husband).
- •Marriage duration: September 2010 – Spring 2022 (11.5 years).
- •No children of the marriage.
- •Husband is a 52-year-old Country A citizen with a successful business (Company Y in Country A, with UK subsidiary Company Z).
- •Wife is a 38-year-old UK citizen, formerly in events management, now pursuing a competitive sports career.
- •Husband's main asset is his 100% shareholding in Company Y.
- •Significant dispute over the valuation of Company Y.
- •High legal costs incurred by both parties (£286,941 for the wife, £445,752 for the husband).
Legal Principles
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires the court to consider all circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to children's welfare (not applicable here). The court must consider income, earning capacity, property, financial needs, standard of living, age, disability, contributions, and conduct.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25
Section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 mandates consideration of terminating financial obligations as soon after the decree as just and reasonable. The court should consider whether periodical payments should be for a term sufficient to allow adjustment to financial independence.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25A
In cases where a relationship seamlessly transitions from cohabitation to marriage, it is inappropriate to treat the periods differently.
GW v RW [2003] EWHC 611 (Fam), Miller v Miller [2006] UKHL 24
Company valuations are inherently fragile; various factors affect their reliability (comparables, business niche, valuation method, parties' interests, third-party interests, market for sale, volatility, forecasts, and disputed assumptions).
Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050, HO v TL [2023] EWFC 215
In long marriages, fairness and equality usually coincide; departure from equality requires good reason. The court should be slow to weigh different contributions.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54, Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, JL v SL [2015] EWHC 360
When dividing assets, the court must consider the illiquidity or risk of different asset types (e.g., cash vs. shares in a private company). Options include accounting discounts, court discounts, or structuring the award to balance risk.
Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476, Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866, HO v TL [2023] EWFC 215
Outcomes
The husband's shareholding in Company Y is valued at £9,976,792, with £2,772,000 considered non-matrimonial.
Based on expert evidence and the judge's assessment of the multiplier and other factors, considering the complexities of valuing a private company with international operations.
Wife to receive a lump sum of £2,500,000 payable in tranches over several years, plus spousal periodical payments at £2,952 pcm net until the first two tranches are paid, then a clean break.
Balances the wife's sharing claim with the illiquidity of the husband's main asset (Company Y shares), taking into account the need to avoid unduly impacting the business.
No order as to costs.
Not explicitly stated.