TW v GC
[2024] EWHC 949 (Fam)
The Incorporated Trustees of Great Calling Ministries Worldwide v Auguster Omonigho Irabor & Anor
11 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 803 (Fam)
High Court
A church lent a husband a lot of money, and then tried to claim a big chunk of the marital home after a divorce. The judge gave a large portion of the house's value to the wife, and the church appealed. The appeal court agreed the wife needed the money (because the husband had hidden assets and wasn't supporting her), so the judge's decision stood. A small error on costs was corrected.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Recorder Willetts' order in financial remedy proceedings awarding the wife (£750k lump sum + costs).
- •Intervenor (church) is the appellant; husband (H) founded the church and received loans.
- •Loans were found to be 'soft loans' with no expectation of repayment (HHJ Mitchell).
- •Church sought a charging order over the former matrimonial home (Daisy Close).
- •Wife (W) sought £750k and costs; husband offered proceeds of sale of second property (Goldhawk House).
- •Assets: Daisy Close (£1.176m), Goldhawk House (£372k net), W's debts (£110k).
- •W lived in council housing; H lived in Daisy Close, minimal involvement with children, unpaid maintenance.
- •Church argued res judicata/estoppel, improper needs assessment, and failure to balance creditor/W's needs.
- •Recorder held himself bound by HHJ Mitchell's decision, deemed church's application 'opportunistic'.
Legal Principles
Res judicata/estoppel: Whether the recorder was bound by HHJ Mitchell's findings on the loans.
Various case law cited, including discussion of Harman v Glencross and Austin-Fell v Austin-Fell.
Assessment of wife's needs: Whether the recorder properly assessed the wife's needs in financial remedy proceedings.
Matrimonial Causes Act and Charging Orders Act 1979.
Balancing exercise: Balancing the interests of the judgment creditor and the needs of the wife and children.
Harman v Glencross [1986] 1 All ER 545 and Austin-Fell v Austin-Fell [1992] All ER 455.
Charging Orders Act 1979, Section 1(5): Court considers all circumstances, debtor's personal circumstances, and prejudice to other creditors.
Charging Orders Act 1979.
Appeal court's approach to findings of fact: Appeal court should not interfere unless the trial judge was plainly wrong.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] 4 WLR 48.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed (except for costs).
Recorder's decision was not plainly wrong; he considered all circumstances and balanced competing interests. While the calculation of W's needs could have been clearer, it wasn't excessively high given H's undisclosed funds and lack of support for W and children. The church's arguments regarding res judicata were deemed sterile, as the recorder considered the facts before him.
Costs order amended.
The recorder double-counted costs; W undertook not to enforce the duplicated costs order.