Court grapples with unreasonable demands in divorce financial remedy dispute

Citation: [2023] EWFC 4
Judgment on


In the matter of “A Former Wife v A Former Husband,” the court grappled with a divorce financial remedy dispute, shedding light on the intricacies and challenges of disentangling intertwined lives. The core issues included the appropriate division of significant assets and addressing the unreasonable demands of the respondent.

Key Facts

  • The couple, now separated, had accumulated substantial assets during their union: a matrimonial home with an equity of £569,844, investments and bank balances amounting to £582,706, and an interest inherited by the husband in a block of flats situated in Cairo.
  • The applicant, the former wife, faced liabilities, including pending legal fees and a modest tax bill.
  • The proceedings were marred by the respondent’s hostile and unreasonable demeanor, causing the legal process to be both challenging and expensive.
  • Notably, despite the decree absolute having been granted, the respondent was under the delusion that the couple remained married. His demands included the complete transfer of the applicant’s assets to himself and a pension-sharing order favoring him. He argued that the applicant’s needs would be met if she simply resumed her life with him as his spouse.
  • This case presents a fundamental question: How should assets be divided in divorce, especially when one party holds an uncooperative and irrational position?
  • The principle of equitable distribution, rooted in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, serves as a guiding doctrine, emphasizing that assets should be split fairly, though not necessarily equally, between parties upon divorce.
  • Past cases, where one party’s unreasonable behavior impacted the division of assets, were evaluated as potential precedents.


  • The judge acknowledged the parties’ individual needs for housing and means to cater to their regular expenses.
  • The respondent’s insistence on a total asset transfer and his suggestion of cohabitation was swiftly dismissed, with the court referencing the finalized decree absolute.
  • An equitable distribution of assets was mandated, though specifics were not detailed in the provided summary.


The case of “A Former Wife v A Former Husband” offers a poignant reminder of the challenges the judiciary faces in disentangling complex personal and financial relationships, particularly when confronted with unyielding stances. As the legal community continually grapples with evolving definitions of fairness and equity in divorce proceedings, this case will undoubtedly serve as a reference point for the importance of reasonable behavior in facilitating just outcomes.

Related Summaries