ES v SS
[2023] EWFC 177
CG v SG
13 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 942 (Fam)
High Court
A wealthy couple divorced. They fought over how much money each should get, especially about the value of the husband's company. The judge decided to split the money fairly, with the husband paying a large sum to the wife. Even though the husband mostly won the case, the judge didn't make the wife pay his legal bills because she wasn't being unreasonable.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedies proceedings following divorce between Ms SG (wife) and Mr CG (husband).
- •Six-day final hearing on March 3rd-10th, 2023.
- •Total legal costs: £3,096,913, borne by the husband.
- •Marriage lasted from 1990 to October 15, 2020 (separation date).
- •Husband had a successful career in financial services; wife was a homemaker.
- •Significant dispute over valuation of husband's interest in G LLP.
- •Three forensic accountants provided reports: Ms Kate Hart (SJE), Mr Andrew Strickland (wife's expert), and Ms Faye Hall (husband's expert).
- •Wife changed legal representation during proceedings.
- •Significant disagreement over the categorization of certain post-separation assets as matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
Legal Principles
Equal division of matrimonial assets is a key component of fairness.
JL v SL [2014] EWHC 3658 (Mostyn J)
Distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.
JL v SL [2014] EWHC 3658 (Mostyn J)
Post-separation accrual: Assets acquired after separation may be non-matrimonial if acquired through personal industry, not use of matrimonial assets.
Rossi v Rossi [2006] EWHC 1482; Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 4122; H v H [2007] EWHC 459; Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41; C v C [2018] EWHC 3186; S v S [2006] EWHC 2339
Valuation of assets at the date of trial.
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
Earning capacity is not a matrimonial asset.
Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727
Court considers Section 25 and 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Sections 25 & 25A
Duty to negotiate openly, reasonably, and responsibly. Failure to do so may result in a costs penalty.
FPR 2010, PD 28A, paragraph 4.4; OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52 (Mostyn J)
Outcomes
FMH transferred to husband.
Agreed by parties.
Y property transferred to wife; mortgage and tax liability paid by husband.
Agreed by parties.
Z property remains with husband.
Agreed by parties.
Artwork divided between parties as per SJE report.
Agreed by parties.
Husband's investments and shareholdings categorized as matrimonial or non-matrimonial based on timing of acquisition.
Post-separation acquisitions were made using post-separation income earned through personal industry.
Husband's trust interests deemed non-matrimonial.
Agreed by parties.
Valuation of husband's interest in G LLP: £133,000 (based on Ms Hall's assessment).
Ms Hall's valuation considered the 'singleton' nature of the business and the husband's central role; rejected the approach of Strickland.
Equalising lump sum payment of £12,978,924 plus an additional £275,000 from husband to wife.
Fair outcome given the division of matrimonial assets and the other Section 25 factors.
No order as to costs.
While husband's position largely prevailed, the wife's reliance on Mr. Strickland's report was not deemed unreasonable given the late emergence of Ms. Hall's findings; the court emphasizes the importance of reasonable negotiation but does not find sufficient grounds for a costs order in this specific case.
Judgment to be published in redacted and anonymised form.
To protect the identities of the parties and the husband's business, consistent with established precedent.