fbpx

Ex-Couple in £16 Million Divorce Case Receive Rough Edge of Judge’s Tongue

Ex-Couple in 16 Million Divorce Case Receive Rough Edge of Judges Tongue

Family lawyers always urge divorcing couples to negotiate a financial settlement openly and sensibly, and those who fail to do so are their own worst enemies. In one case, a wealthy couple’s uncompromising attitudes earned them a judge’s stinging criticism and legal costs bills totalling more than £1 million.

During their 25-year marriage the couple established a business that the husband described as a money-making machine. They lived comfortably but not lavishly, and generated more wealth than they knew what to do with. They invested in pensions, private schooling for their children and an international property portfolio, but almost £10 million remained in the company as surplus funds.

Following their acrimonious divorce, however, they were unable to agree on almost anything. Although the wife had full charge of the financial and administrative side of the company, the husband said that he was the technical brains behind the business and that without him it would not be sustainable. Serious difficulties arose because they continued to owe duties of fidelity to the company as directors, but no longer owed a duty of love and care to one another.

Ruling on the financial aspects of their divorce, the judge noted that the husband had engaged in dishonest attempts to conceal various transactions. He had also serially failed to disclose the full extent of his assets. Such conduct was futile and frankly inexplicable in that the truth was bound to come out. It appeared to have been prompted by pure bloody-mindedness.

The wife was more sinned against than sinning but was not above criticism. Taking an unreasonable stance, she had herself been guilty of non-disclosure and had put forward an untenable proposal that she should receive two thirds of the marital assets, heavily discounted in her favour, and the husband one third.

The judge valued the marital assets at £16,371,669 and ruled that it was a paradigm case for the application of the equal sharing principle. However, the husband’s share was reduced to £7,316,094 – or 44.7 per cent of the total – because he had set up a business in competition with the company. As a reflection of his abysmal litigation conduct, he was also ordered to make a substantial contribution towards the wife’s legal costs.

If you need help or advice about a matrimonial or family law matter, call us today on 0800 3 10 11 12 or get in touch online.

Our articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.

COVID-19 Information

We are OPEN and would like to reassure our client's that it is business as usual and as a firm we intend on supporting our clients through this difficult time. Please note: Clients are requested to wear face masks when attending our office(s). As a precautionary measure to limit the risk to everyone our preferred communication is by telephone and/or email and/or post. We may take a little longer to respond to enquiries and deal with matters. Please bear with us in these unprecedented times.