S v S
[2023] EWFC 269 (B)
AT v BT
6 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3531 (Fam)
High Court
A couple divorced, and they fought over money. The judge decided when they officially lived together, valued their house, and said a prenup wasn't fair because the wife was pressured into signing it. After figuring out how much they both had, the judge split the money roughly in half, giving each around £6.9 million, ensuring no more fighting.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between AT (wife) and BT (husband).
- •Wife incurred costs of £833,295 and £570,000 in financial remedy and children proceedings respectively.
- •Husband incurred costs of £904,352 and £550,658 in financial remedy and children proceedings respectively.
- •Wife seeks a lump sum of £9.145 million; husband offers £3.545 million.
- •Wife claims significant sums held in trust are marital assets subject to equal sharing, while husband argues for a needs-based approach.
- •Parties dispute cohabitation start date (2003 vs. late 2005/early 2006).
- •Ante-nuptial contract signed the day before the wedding in 2007.
- •Bitterly contested Children Act proceedings resulted in orders restricting wife's contact with children.
- •Wife's career in private equity ended in 2007 due to marriage-related circumstances.
- •Husband has significant pre-marital wealth and ongoing income streams.
Legal Principles
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Court considers all circumstances, with welfare of children as first consideration.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 25
Sharing principle: Starting point is equal division of assets, subject to other relevant factors.
White v White [2000]
Needs principle: Assets primarily divided to meet parties' housing and financial needs.
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
Compensation principle: Compensation for economic disadvantage caused by the marriage.
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
R v Lucas: If a witness lies about one matter, it does not mean they lied about everything.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Clean break: Aim to achieve a financial settlement that ends all future claims between parties.
Cohabitation: Must involve mutual commitment in emotional and practical terms; often includes pooling of resources.
McCartney case; VV v VV
Ante-nuptial contracts: Consideration given to pressure, timing, and independent advice.
Outcomes
Cohabitation commenced in late 2005/early 2006, not 2003.
Husband's evidence more reliable; inconsistencies in wife's account; lack of financial mingling before 2006.
Value of former family home set at £4.1 million.
Preferred evidence of Mr. French (Knight Frank) over Mr. White (BGW McDaniel) due to better reasoning and research.
Ante-nuptial contract not contractually enforceable.
Wife signed under undue pressure (pregnancy, career termination, impending wedding).
Wife awarded £6,894,791 lump sum.
50/50 split of net assets (£13,789,582) after considering all assets including trust funds and pre-marital wealth, offset by tax liabilities.
Clean break order.
To bring an end to litigation between the parties and foster peace for the family.