A v M  EWFC 895 November 2021
Published: 11/03/2022 09:00
H worked in private equity and had set up two funds of his own, W was the beneficiary of valuable trust funds. Mostyn J set out a detailed method for dealing with H’s carried interest (in his view a hybrid resource, neither exclusively return on capital nor an earned bonus). The marital element of the carry was calculated linearly over time (see ) and divided equally. Wells sharing was then limited by rolling W’s share of the second fund into the first, with adjustment to reflect disparity in the value of H’s share of the carry from each fund.
W was expected to use her own resources (including the non-marital trusts) to meet her needs in the 4.5 years till receipt of the carry. On receipt, W’s share of the carry was likely to yield a sufficient annual Duxbury income. Mostyn J considered nominal maintenance as an insurance policy a 'symbolic irritant', contrary to s 25A MCA, and ordered a clean break.
W’s costs (double those of H) were excessively incurred, and £150,000 was notionally added back to the asset schedule. H’s open offer at the PTR was similar to the final award. W’s failure to negotiate had propelled the parties to trial and amounted to misconduct, sounding in an order for costs.
Finally, Mostyn J indicated his default position in the future will be non-anonymisation of judgments, with derogations from this needing to be distinctly justified.