G v N [2025] EWFC 286 (B)

Judgment date: 14 January 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/286

Overview

District Judge Shackleton. The case concerns an application for a financial remedies order following divorce between a husband and wife. The order sought, and granted, was that the marital home be transferred into the husband’s sole name following the wife’s departure nearly 30 years previously.

Case summary

The case concerns an application for a financial remedies order 30 years after the marriage broke down. The order sought is that their former marital home be transferred into the husband’s sole name.

Judge’s considerations

The judge stated that normally the court would consider the parties’ positions, the issues, and the relevant law pursuant to the s 25 factors; [7]. However, the particular facts of this case fall out of the ordinary.

• The husband had served all relevant documents and orders; the wife had not. The wife was not present for the decision, and the court had not heard anything from the wife until the day before the hearing when she had contacted the central financial remedies court office to tell them that she would not be present at court due to ill health. The hearing proceeded due to the absence of an application for an adjournment; [4]–[6].
• The wife had left the family home nearly 30 years before when their children were minors. There is no evidence to suggest that the wife left for any other reason than by her own choice. The judge stated that she left to start a family with another man; [12].
• The only asset is the former marital home where the husband lived at the time of the decision. At the time the wife left, the mortgage outstanding was 90% and there was 10% equity in the property. Since she left, the husband entirely paid off the mortgage and paid for the children’s upbringing fully himself. There was no child maintenance service input, no benefits, and no maintenance from the wife; [13].
• The judge considered the s 25 factors, considering ss 25(b), (c), (d), and in particular (f); [7]. Conduct had not been raised. However, the conduct here meant that the husband has carried the entire financial burden, discharging all finances including children’s education; [15].

The husband sought the transfer of the marital home into his sole name. He sought an order that the court signs the TR1 to save further expense and to sign with all indication that she has not engaged; [17].

The judge granted the order. The wife had no claim whatsoever to the property, [18]. The court would sign the TR1 21 days from the date of the hearing. Thereafter, clean break.

The court would have been prepared to entertain an application for costs had the husband applied for that.