Goddard-Watts v Goddard Watts  EWHC 711 (Fam)
Published: 03/02/2022 09:00
Sir Jonathan Cohen.
Second rehearing of W’s application for financial remedy orders, two previous orders having been set aside due to H’s non-disclosure. W’s application based on H’s knowledge at the time of the (second) judgment that he was about to receive interest in shares of his business.
Judge considered it was not necessary to review the approach at the first rehearing as that order had now been set aside. The Judge had discretion to start from scratch or adopt a more tailored position (Kingdon v Kingdon  1 FLR 1409). The judge adopted the Kingdon approach as it was a single issue case about value and realisation of H’s shares and W had already received share of non-disclosed trusts in 2016 and other assets in 2010.
Judge rejected W’s assertion that, if she had known the value of the shares, she might have sought a transfer of them in 2010. W’s contributions since consent order in 2010 taken into account when considering s 25, on the basis that neither party contemplated that she alone would bear the burden of caring for and raising the children from 2010. After some reduction to her budget, judge concluded the W needed £1.1m, with reference to Duxbury Tables, to meet her income needs.
W requested costs order of £812,000, being costs incurred over and above costs orders already made. Judge declined, stating that it is a matter for W if she has incurred costs far in excess of the costs orders made. W’s costs totalled £824k and H’s £737k for this round of litigation.