The Incorporated Trustees of Great Calling Ministries Worldwide v Auguster Omonigho Irabor & Anor
[2024] EWHC 803 (Fam)
TW v GC
23 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 949 (Fam)
High Court
A husband appealed a divorce court's decision on how much money his ex-wife should receive. The appeals court mostly agreed with the original decision, but made a few small changes about how the money was calculated, mainly concerning the wife's pension. The changes didn't significantly affect the total amount the wife receives.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HHJ Furness KC's order in financial remedy proceedings.
- •19-year marriage with three daughters.
- •Husband's net income approximately £165,352, with potential for significantly more.
- •Wife not working, receiving interim provision.
- •Total assets approximately £13,042,014.
- •Wife's initial claim for £4m, husband offered £1.2m.
- •Judge awarded wife £2.36m (later adjusted to £2.3m after appeal), plus a pension share (later set aside).
- •Appeal concerned the quantum of wife's annual maintenance need and its capitalisation, the treatment of pensions, and interest on late payment.
Legal Principles
Appeals operate by way of a review; may be allowed if the decision was wrong or unjust.
FPR 30.12(1) and (3)
Appellate court considers the judgment as a whole; should not interfere with trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless plainly wrong.
Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 546; Volpi and Ors v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
In needs-based claims, the marital standard of living is a starting point, but not necessarily a ceiling or floor; eventual independence is a goal.
Juffali v Juffali [2016] EWHC 1684 (Fam); BD v FD [2016] EWHC (Fam) 594; Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
Needs and sharing principles are separate and distinct; if needs exceed sharing, needs prevail; if sharing exceeds needs, sharing prevails.
Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503; Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727
Outcomes
Husband's appeal on the quantum of wife's maintenance need dismissed.
Judge's decision was within the discretionary boundaries; considered husband's income potential, wife's earning capacity, and both parties' budgets; judge's assessment of husband's credibility relevant.
Pension sharing order set aside; wife's pension should have been considered in needs assessment.
Needs and sharing principles are separate; wife's pension should have been factored into her overall financial resources, reducing the lump sum awarded by £60,000.
Appeal allowed in part regarding interest on the income element of the lump sum.
Interest on the income portion, in addition to maintenance, was excessive given the circumstances.