District Judge Ashby. Final hearing concerning an application for a final financial remedy order in proceedings concerning serious findings of non-disclosure.

Facts

W (34) and H (30) married in July 2016. Both parties were made bankrupt in April 2020. During the marriage, the parties were involved in a bulldog business, which was not registered with Companies House, and sometimes charged £50,000 per dog. The parties separated on 1 June 2021. Neither party owned property. W’s earnings were £14,000 and she received £10,000 from universal credit. Post-separation, H earned money from employment, continued with the bulldog business and worked as a labourer. He lived a luxury lifestyle with luxury holidays and clothing.

W made applications for a lump sum, periodical payments and costs. The judge heard live evidence from M and H.

Legal principles

The duty of full and frank disclosure is the bedrock principle of the Financial Remedies Court. In relation to lying, R v Lucas states that it is common for witnesses to lie, they may lie for various reasons, and just because they lie about one thing does not mean they are lying about all things.

Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, with the first, but not paramount, consideration being the children.

SS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183 summarises the principles that govern the award of spousal maintenance. These include:

• where choices have been made during the course of the marriage that have generated hard future needs on the part of the claimant/applicant;
• the duration of the marriage and the presence of children are pivotal factors;
• awards should be made by reference to need;
• whether the needs are causally related to the marriage;
• terminating maintenance at the earliest possible point, as soon as it is just and reasonable;
• the standard of living is relevant but not decisive.

Child maintenance is a matter for the child maintenance service.

Judgment

The judge ruled that H had ‘absolutely no respect for the authority of the court or this process’ and decided that H was dishonest about the way his companies were set up; and the lack of tax paid; and the lack of VAT paid. H had also failed to disclose his earnings; his length of time in employment; his P60; and he had lied outright during evidence about WhatsApp messages when asked questions by the judge.

The judge described H’s form E as ‘a fairytale, bearing absolutely no resemblance to the truth’. He also commented, ‘rarely have I encountered a situation where such continuous brazen lies have been pursued before the court in this kind of manner’. However, the dishonesty related to post-separation earnings, which the judge would have put less weight on anyway.

The judge calculated H’s gross income as at least £150,000 per annum. Reviewing W’s needs for the purposes of spousal maintenance, he commented that she has the children for a majority (60%) of the time, and has less earning capacity. The judge ultimately decided on periodical payments of £1,000 a month until the youngest child reaches 18 or until they finish university education, but maximum age 21. Remarriage, death, cohabitation of more than two years will also bring this to an end. The £1,000 would be linked to RPI.

The judge did not order a lump sum because at the point of separation the available matrimonial assets were slim.

Costs

The judge stated that this was ‘one of the most egregious and worst examples of dishonesty to the court’ that he has encountered – perhaps the worst. The judge ordered for H to pay the costs that W was seeking in the sum of £10,224 on an indemnity basis.