Cohen J. This was the final hearing in the W’s application for financial remedies, following a long relationship of 27/28 years, during which the parties had two children aged 13 and 19.

Both parties were initially journalists. The W became a full-time mother while the H moved into finance, eventually setting up his own hedge fund in around 2015. This was self-funded by way of savings built up during the marriage.

The parties had assets of c.£27.188m, £5.789m in the W’s name and the remainder in the H’s name. Of those in the H’s name, the vast majority, around £16.803m gross were invested in his hedge fund.

In 2017, the H gave the W a gift in the sum of £1m after a woman with whom the H had an affair made a Schedule 1 application on the basis of advice that he was likely to have to pay c.£1m to the applicant in the Schedule 1 proceedings. H’s position was that this gift should be shared. The judge concluded that it was a matrimonial asset, available for sharing, but the circumstances were highly relevant and there was no need for H to share in it. W was therefore entitled to keep it.

H sought to ringfence £2.433m of profit allocation as post-separation accrual. The judge declined to do so in full, and relied on Rossi and Cowan. The judge found the sums received in the year after separation and 50% of those received in the second year post separation to be matrimonial.

An SJE valued the hedge fund and the W later instructed an additional expert. Both experts agreed that the business was unsellable and accepted in evidence that their valuations were the best calculations of value to the H rather than any third party. The judge reiterated Versteegh, that there is no absolute requirement to settle on a valuation if it would be no more than a wild guess.

W’s case was that she should receive a Wells award in respect of the business, providing her lump sums equal to 25% of the H’s share in profits and of any capital realisation over a period of time, on the basis that the business was entirely matrimonial. H sought a clean break and claimed W’s position was attempting to share in his future earning capacity. The judge relied on JL v SL and concluded that if H were left with all of the future return of the business he would receive the whole benefit of what was built up during the marriage. The judge allowed W to receive fixed percentages for a limited period of time, in this case six financial years.