MacDonald J. Final hearing in contentious case involving high legal costs and allegations of wanton dissipation.

W was aged 55 and H 58. Married July 1995. Two children aged 18 and 16 respectively. The parties had lived in London but at the time of this hearing were living in Wyoming (W) and Portugal (H) respectively.

The wife had worked for Lehman Brothers before the birth of the children but had not worked since. She was held to have a modest earning capacity. H had been in banking but since termination had been living off capital and intended to operate as a niche private investor. He held cryptocurrency funds and private equity investments. They had agreed to set aside money to fund tertiary education for the children.

W asserted that H had not disclosed £178m in cryptocurrency. The court found while H should be deprecated for late disclosure he had not failed to disclose assets and the true assets were some £12m net.

H had spent £987,000 on legal fees and the wife had spent £1.9m funded by a litigation loan. She had failed to comply with seven orders relating to expert evidence relating to tax. W alleged she had wantonly and recklessly dissipated assets and had failed to engage in any serious attempts to settle the proceedings.

Held:

Wanton and reckless dissipation can include excessive spending on legal costs. A costs order against W would not remedy the effect of there being less wealth to be distributed between the parties. An £800,000 add-back was appropriate.

Each party's housing needs could be met by a housing fund of £2m. Each had an income need of £150,000 pa (a Duxbury of £3m to W). The standard of living during the marriage was not sustainable, partly because of their approach to litigation.

The assets were to be shared as to 52% to the wife and 48% to the husband. This was a sharing award and was sufficient to meet the wife’s needs.

W would receive a property with a modest mortgage and two rental units in New York together with savings investments and pension provision. She would be able to purchase a property for £2m and invest a £3m Duxbury fund in addition to income from investments and pensions.

H would also retain a property and two rental units in New York, and would receive rental income, business interests, investments and pensions. His slightly lesser award was justified by his greater earning capacity.

For other judgments in this case see No 2, No 1, and the costs judgment No 4.