Financial Infidelity and Undisclosed Assets: Key Issues in DP v EP Case

Citation: [2023] EWFC 6
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case “DP v EP,” the court grapples with financial remedy proceedings that have been complicated by allegations of undisclosed assets, financial infidelity, and discrepancies in evidence. With a long marriage spanning 28 years, and both parties actively working, the crux of the issue is rooted in alleged financial misconduct by the wife, EP, against her husband, DP.

Key Facts

  • DP and EP have been married for nearly three decades, with three children born from their union.
  • Both parties have professions, with EP being a property consultant and DP being a builder.
  • It was revealed that EP was previously married when marrying DP, which rendered their marriage void.
  • EP’s application for a financial remedy was issued in November 2019, aiming for a hearing within three days. This plan was thwarted when a notable discrepancy was discovered between EP’s bank statements and her presented evidence.
  • Capital assets in this case amount to approximately £1.46m.
  • Allegations against EP by DP include financial infidelity and exploitation, claims which she denies.
  • The “add-back” argument is raised, suggesting that it is probable EP possesses undisclosed assets.
  • The case also dives deep into “conduct” as a determining factor in financial remedies. The historical perspective includes references to “Miller v Miller; MacFarlane v MacFarlane,” where the importance of considering behavior was emphasized, even if it didn’t meet the typical definition of “conduct.”
  • The term “gasp factor” was coined in “S v S (Non-Matrimonial Property: Conduct)” as a measure for determining conduct’s relevance in these matters.
  • The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has given statutory definitions to various forms of abusive behavior, introducing “economic abuse” as a valid consideration.
  • Evidence presented in the case encompassed financial disclosures, witness statements, expert valuation reports, and documents from matrimonial proceedings, with EP identified as an inconsistent witness.

Outcomes

  • Given the myriad of facts and substantial evidence, combined with the shadow of alleged misconduct, the court is tasked with making an informed decision that upholds justice while considering the parties’ needs and contributions.
  • The relevance of a party’s conduct, especially when tied to financial discrepancies or infidelity, becomes paramount in determining fair financial remedies.

Conclusion

The “DP v EP” case underscores the complexities entwined in financial remedy cases, especially when potential financial misconduct is thrown into the mix. The case highlights the importance of integrity and transparency in legal proceedings and serves as a reminder that conduct, especially one that can financially impact the outcome, cannot be dismissed. Future cases will likely draw on this precedent when faced with similar challenges, emphasizing the significance of thorough financial disclosure and the weight of truthful evidence.