DJ Hatvany. Final financial remedies hearing in a where the assets were modest. The parties were married for 11 years and had twin boys aged 9. An unfortunate feature of this case was that both parties had incurred large costs, which would make clearing their debt on both sides and enabling both parties to rehouse in a three-to-four-bedroom properties close to the boy’s school problematic. Both sides took out expensive litigation loans incurring interest charges of up to 24%. H’s legal fees were £151,000 and W’s were £177,000. At first blush, it seemed that W had incurred a great deal of money asking questions about historical assets with no value. However, the judge noted that H did not help by providing wholly inaccurate information in his Form E, such as undervaluing his business ([43]–[44]), which meant the wife could no longer take anything H said at face value.

The two main assets in the case were H’s business (the assets of which largely consist of a flat in London and Bath) that W had a 30% interest in, and the former matrimonial home (FMH) which had a net equity of £1.1m. H had a pension with a value of £135,000, having cashed in £80,000 towards legal fees. W had the benefit of a PSO following the dissolution of her last marriage with a value of £281,000. W sought £935,000 from the net proceeds of sale amounting to 80% of the net equity in return for transferring her 30% shareholding in H’s business back to him. H offered £820,573 which amounted to 70% of the net equity in the FMH in return for a transfer of the shares. The net effect of H’s proposal was that both parties would end up with 50% of the available assets, and on W’s case H would receive 47% and W 53% of the available assets.

The judge determined that W should receive the first £935,000 from the net proceeds of sale of the FMH with the balance to H and in return W should transfer her 30% shareholding in his business to H with H providing an indemnity. This equated to 52.9/47.1 division in favour of W. The departure from equality was justified on the basis that H had a higher earning capacity and mortgage raising capacity and W would remain the primary carer of the children for the foreseeable future. W’s housing needs were marginally greater than H’s given that she needed to be within the catchment area of the twin’s school. H’s share would be further reduced by £16,617, which represented the CGT payable upon sale of the FMH due to H prematurely applying for Decree Absolute. H would therefore retain c.£240,000 from the net proceeds of sale to either acquire a new property or continue renting and retain his business.

W sought £3250 global maintenance per month for a 10-year term, and H offered £2000 per month spousal maintenance for 5 years. Given H’s erratic child maintenance payments, which led to arrears of £11,500 and uncertainty caused to W, the judge agreed to order global maintenance instead. In his judgment, DJ Hatvany considered £3,000 pcm to be fair on a global maintenance basis with a pound for pound reduction for child maintenance received to commence following sale of the FMH. The payments would continue and be linked to CPI until the twins turned 18. The rationale for maintenance was that W could not transition to financial independence within a few years, and W, despite being of advancing years, would be the main carer of the boys for the next 10 years.

H would continue paying the mortgage and outgoings until the property was sold as per the terms of his undertaking in FLA proceedings. W’s short term income needs could be met using the £21,000 from the sale of proceeds of the painting held by the auctioneers. This sum would also be used to defray some of her debt. No order was made about pensions.