Kay Jacqueline Butler v Earl Anthony Butler
[2023] EWHC 2453 (Fam)
Ditchfield v Ditchfield (Appeal)
20 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2303 (Fam)
High Court
A husband appealed a divorce ruling where the wife got more assets. The judge found the husband dishonest and hid money, so the appeal was mostly rejected. The wife keeps more because the husband wasn't honest.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a final order in divorce proceedings.
- •Total net assets: £339,000.
- •Wife's (W) earnings: £40,000pa gross; Husband's (H) earning capacity: £150,000-£180,000pa gross.
- •Assets divided: £211,000 (68%) to W, £128,000 (32%) to H (clean break basis).
- •H withdrew £530,000 from business ventures post-separation, with unclear usage.
- •Judge found H dishonest, lacking in disclosure, and manipulative.
- •H's business valuations disputed; judge relied on higher valuation (£270,000).
- •Dispute over loan (£100,000) from H's sister; judge attributed it solely to H.
- •Disagreement on mortgage payments for the former matrimonial home (FMH).
Legal Principles
Appeals operate by way of review; may be allowed if the decision was wrong or unjust due to irregularity.
FPR 30.12(1) and (3)
A decision may be wrong due to errors of law, unsupported factual conclusions, improper weighting of matters, or unreasonable exercise of discretion.
G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal)
Appellate courts should not interfere with trial judge's factual conclusions unless plainly wrong; detailed guidance on appellate review of findings of fact.
Volpi and Ors v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Courts can draw adverse conclusions from lack of disclosure; non-disclosing party cannot complain about resulting orders.
Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482; F v F [1994] 1 FLR 359
Distinction between liquid and illiquid assets in financial remedy cases.
Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476; CO v YZ [2020] EWFC 62
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed, except for minor amendments to the order.
Judge's findings of fact were unimpeachable; evaluative decision within reasonable range; H's misconduct contributed to the outcome.
Asset division: 62/38 in W's favour.
H's dishonesty, better future prospects, partner's contribution, and substantial post-separation withdrawals considered.
Timeframe for repayment of loan to H's sister deleted; H to indemnify W.
No agreed timeframe; sister didn't directly seek enforcement.
Amendment to s28(1A) provision for mortgage payment pending sale of London Property 2.
Oversight in original order.