CC v LC
[2023] EWFC 52 (B)
WX v HX
21 December 2023
[2023] EWFC 279 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced after a long marriage. The husband didn't fully disclose his money, making it hard to decide how to split their assets. The judge gave the wife the house but made the husband pay a lot of the wife's legal bills because he didn't cooperate. The judge tried to be fair even though the husband hid some of his money.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedies application on divorce after a nearly 20-year marriage.
- •Applicant sought property adjustment order (family home) and lump sum order.
- •Respondent's significant non-compliance with disclosure orders and general procedural requirements.
- •Intervention by respondent's mother, sister, and brother.
- •Extensive procedural history, including numerous case management hearings and applications for Hadkinson-type orders.
- •Respondent's shareholding in a company owning a hotel was a major asset.
- •Fragile expert valuations of the hotel and respondent's shareholding.
- •Open proposals from both parties that differed significantly.
Legal Principles
General principles governing financial remedies on divorce (needs, compensation, sharing, clean break)
WC v HC [2022] EWFC 22
Duty of full and frank disclosure
NG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam), Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, J v J [1955] P 215, Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482
Treatment of business assets and valuations
HO v TL [2023] EWFC 215, H v H [2008] EWHC 935 (Fam), Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866
Treatment of liabilities
P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC B9
Litigation conduct and costs
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, TT v CDS [2020] EWCA Civ 1215, Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115, WG v HG [2018] EWFC 84, Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 28.3
Relief from sanctions
Tarn Insurance Services Limited (in Administration) v Kirby [2009] EWCA Civ 19, Williams v Williams [2023] EWHC 3098 (Fam)
Outcomes
Family home transferred to the applicant.
Fair share of assets considering respondent's likely undisclosed resources and the fragility of the expert valuations. Meeting needs of both parties.
No lump sum payment to the applicant.
Considering the respondent's likely undisclosed assets and the overall fairness of the outcome.
Respondent to pay £40,000 towards applicant's costs.
Respondent's significant litigation misconduct which hampered the proceedings and increased costs.
Clean break order for both parties.
In line with section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and both parties' agreement.