HHJ Hess. Final hearing in case involving footballer. Application of Moher in light of H’s misconduct and attachment of earnings order made to secure maintenance.

W is aged 27, a former television presenter living abroad in her home country, X. H is a footballer from country Y playing for a club in England as well as his country’s national team. The parties had a religious-only marriage ceremony March 2020 and a legal ceremony 11 June 2020. One child, aged 3, living with mother. Given H’s international career parties barely lived together as W remained in country X. H also had two children by two different mothers prior to his marriage to W. H was now reunited with one of these mothers and living with her in the UK.

Divorce petition May 2023. H’s application for a stay based on forum and jurisdiction refused. H ordered to pay maintenance pending suit and LSPO, having been financially generous to W during marriage but having subsequently left her impecunious. H failed to comply with those orders (save to the extent that an attachment of earnings order achieved this), attend the FDA, or file a Form E, and a number of third party disclosure orders were made against the club and various banks. After then engaging in inadequate and opaque disclosure, H sought further adjournment of final hearing. In default of any commitment by H to provide security, adjournment was refused. H owned properties in country Y and misrepresented these and bank accounts. His earnings were around £891k gross.

W owned an apartment in country X, which costs her c.£1k pcm towards mortgage. W says H gave W funds as a gift to purchase this property in her name. H says the intention was for her to buy a property in his name. He had launched criminal proceedings in country X for fraud, which had resulted in W having to wear an electronic tag while it was being investigated. W has some debts and significant legal debts but substantially caused by H’s conduct. W’s earnings limited by childcare and lack of state benefits system in country X.

Applying Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482 HHJ sought to draw inferences. W’s version relating to apartment in X was the truth – H had no interest in the property. It was reasonable to enable W to remain where she was living to provide their child with stability. H to pay W £150,000 to redeem mortgage and pay off debts. H to pay £2000 pcm in spousal periodical payments until 2027 then a nominal amount until 2034 without s 28(1A) bar. In event X’s fraud proceedings against W continue then HHJ Hess ‘may be persuaded’ to vary the spousal PPs upwards. H to pay £2,000 pcm for child until end of tertiary education plus nursery and school fees. Both spousal and child PPs were linked to CPI. Attachment of earnings order. Further costs order against H of £50,000.