District Judge Hatvany. Final hearing in a needs case concerning a relatively short marriage where the breadwinner and main financial contributor is now also the primary carer for the children.

This case concerned a short marriage of five years with four years of pre-marital cohabitation. The parties have two children aged 17 and 16 who live with H; they had not seen W since November 2020 apart for a brief time in 2021. Both parties were acting as litigants in person.

W accused H of domestic abuse and of alienating the children against her. The children live with H because of W’s relationship with a man who was convicted of child sex offences in June 2023 and the parties’ children were exposed to the risk of, and possibly actual, sexual and other harm. W has intermittent indirect contact by way of text/Instagram messages.

Both parties attempted to raise conduct as an issue but the judge disallowed those arguments, relying on the judgment in N v J [2024] EWFC 184.

The main assets were the equity in the family home and H’s pension.

The first FMH was purchased in joint names, during the parties’ cohabitation and prior to their marriage, with the deposit of almost £34,000 being paid by H. The parties moved to the second FMH in May 2015 and lived there together for only 43 days before separation.

The equity in the FMH is £182k after sale costs. It was accepted that H would have to remortgage to buy out W which would save £11k of costs of sale, bringing the equity to £194k.

H earns c.£32k gross, plus child benefit of c.£1,700 pa. He is financially responsible for the children (receiving only £30.42 per month in child maintenance from W), pays the mortgage and had spent around £20k on renovations to enhance the value of the property.

W earns £12k gross. She has a psychology degree and a hairdressing and beauty business and was also a director of a company. The judge found, given W had not had responsibility for the children for four years, she had not maximised her earning capacity during that time. W lives in privately rented accommodation.

W sought £77,600, or 40% of the equity in the FMH in return for a transfer of her interest. H offered £23,000 which amounted to 11.85% of the net equity.

In considering the section 25 factors, the judge noted:

1. The marriage was relatively short at five years, with four years premarital cohabitation.
2. In terms of contributions, H utilised his savings, the proceeds of sale of a flat and an award from a personal injury claim towards the deposit on the first FMH, he has also reduced the mortgage on the current property.
3. W has been unable to live at the FMH since July 2015.
4. H is the higher earner but W could do more to maximise her earnings, which should be at least double.
5. H bears sole fiscal responsibility for the children.

The judge concluded that there needed to be a radical departure from equality in favour of H on the basis that he has been the sole carer for the children since 2020 and will continue to be responsible for them, the marriage was relatively short, and H was the main financial contributor.

There are insufficient funds for W to be able to rehouse in a property of her own, she has no mortgage raising capacity and will have to continue to rent. She accepted that she did not need to rent a three bedroom property, as she was doing at the time of the final hearing.

H’s MRC is £126,627, the current mortgage on the FMH is £104,000. H has reduced outstanding balance slightly since then. H will have to remortgage to buy out W. On these figures, he could raise an additional £22,627.

The judge ordered H to remortgage to buy out W, transfer her interest to H and pay her a lump sum of £22,627, which represents 12% of the equity. In addition, H to pay £20,000 within six months of the youngest child’s 18th birthday in 2026. This amounts to 22% asset share for W.

In addition, a pension sharing order in favour of W to produce equality of income at age 60 based on the contributions made during the nine-year cohabitation as set out in the pension report.