Michael James Augousti v Amrit Kaur Matharu
[2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam)
JL v NN
25 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1489 (Fam)
High Court
A wife appealed a court decision about dividing assets after a divorce. The judge made mistakes: using the wrong standard for proving dishonesty, not properly checking the husband's future earnings, and being unfair to the wife. The court decided the decision was wrong and sent the case back for a new judge to decide.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by wife (JL) against Recorder Howling KC's July 7, 2023, decision in financial remedy proceedings.
- •Husband (NN) is a 43-year-old IT specialist, recently employed as a PAYE employee after years with a limited company.
- •Wife is a 38-year-old part-time NHS clinical trials specialist.
- •Parties married in 2018, with a child born in 2019.
- •Wife alleges husband's new employment is a sham to reduce his earning capacity.
- •Wife alleges husband's financial non-disclosure and dishonesty.
- •Significant legal costs incurred by both parties (£221,000 total).
- •Substantial assets (two properties) but also significant liabilities (debts).
Legal Principles
Appellate court will not overturn a first instance decision unless it is wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularity.
FPR 30.12(3)
Test for granting permission to appeal: real prospect of success or other compelling reason.
FPR 30.3(7)
Appellate court may intervene if there's an error of law, the decision is plainly wrong, or relevant matters are not considered.
B-v-B (Residence Orders: Reasons for Decision) [1997] 2 FLR 602
Appellate courts should show caution in overturning a trial judge's evaluation of facts; reasons for judgment should be read assuming the judge knew their functions and relevant matters.
Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360
In financial remedy cases, fraud or dishonesty is assessed on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Law (implied)
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Court considers welfare of child, needs of each party, resources, contributions, conduct.
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Judge misdirected himself on the standard of proof for fraud, failed to determine husband's future earning capacity, treated parties unevenly, and failed to adequately weigh the husband's unsustainable debt burden in the context of his housing.
Case remitted for rehearing by a different judge.
The errors identified in the original judgment were significant enough to require a rehearing.