IN v CH [2025] EWFC 265 (08 July 2025)

Judgment date: 8 July 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/265

W’s application for financial remedies. Trowell J was tasked with dividing the remaining assets of a couple who had previously enjoyed immense wealth that was significantly diminished due to the consequences of war. Issues included dispositions by H intended to defeat W’s claim and valuations of assets. The case involved ‘staggering’ legal costs of over £5m, which the judge described as ‘a horrifying amount’.

Background

W was in her late 30s and had not worked during the marriage. She was a student and a model when the parties met. H was in his mid-60s and had been a successful businessman with pre-marital wealth in excess of £565m in 2007. The parties married in 2018 after cohabiting for over a decade and moved to London in the early 2010s. They have three children, two in their mid to late teens and one slightly younger. They separated in April 2023, W initiating divorce proceedings and then FR proceedings.

During the course of the proceedings, there had been a number of orders made, and hearings before Trowell J including:

1. An MPS order and an LSPO in November 2023. The spousal MPS was at the rate of £480,000 p.a. and the child maintenance was £60,000 per child p.a.
2. A first appointment in January 2024, at which the court appointed an expert from ‘Country A’ to act as SJE accountants.
3. A further LSPO in May 2024.
4. An order declining W’s application for a declaration that she had a beneficial interest in the family home and allowing its sale, in June 2024.
5. July 2024, a private FDR before Mr Dyer KC.
6. In October 2024 a further LSPO.
7. In December 2024 an order giving permission for the instruction of further accountants (RDA).
8. In April 2025 a pretrial review hearing.

As such, legal costs were staggeringly high, exceeding £5m combined. The judge said that this is ‘on any view … a horrifying amount’. Further, that ‘the parties (and the lawyers) do need to look to themselves and reflect on whether or not there might not have been a better way to approach this litigation’.

The parties’ positions

W’s position was that she had £1.7m of assets and H some £192m.

W accepted that the war would have had a negative effect on H’s overall wealth, but that it is far from obliterated, some parts of his business have done well as a consequence of the war, and he is in prime position to profit from the reconstruction. She alleged H had been dishonest in his presentation of his business affairs. The paring back, she says, that had occurred, is a consequence of the separation not the war.

In very round terms (ignoring maintenance), W was seeking a settlement of £72.5m.

H recorded himself as being in debt to the tune of some -£74m and W having £1.5m.

He accepted the net debt position was somewhat arbitrary because of limited liability in relation to company liabilities. His general position was that his wealth had diminished throughout the marriage, but in recent years it had been hit hard by the ongoing war. He raised many particular incidents: bombs blowing buildings up, power cuts, loss of customers, loss of workforce to the army, difficult economic circumstances in Country A, and his financial institution’s consequential dependence on state debt as to which there may be default. He claimed recently that some of his businesses have become embroiled in litigation with the state, which gives rise to a potential claim in excess of £100m. This had led to state enforcement agencies searching dozens of offices.

In round terms, H was offering W some £6m.

Key issues

Valuation of H’s businesses

The valuation of H’s business interests was a major point of contention, with two different accountancy experts providing vastly different figures. The court appointed an SJE from Country A, and a second expert (RDA) was later instructed by W. Their valuations for H’s businesses varied dramatically, from the SJE’s -£78m (in 2023) to RDA’s +£98.4m (in 2024).

RDA concluded, given that they were not able to receive the documentation and information that they sought, that the only way they could sensibly do their job of valuing H’s business interests was to accept the basic building blocks of data used by the SJE and report by way of a critique of the analysis of the SJE.

The judge had to navigate 24 areas of disagreement between the experts which are not repeated here. The judge acknowledged the inherent uncertainty of valuing businesses in a war zone. He ultimately adopted a hybrid approach, largely siding with the SJE’s local knowledge while making adjustments based on logical flaws pointed out by RDA, while noting that H’s failure to provide full financial information limited the reliability of both expert reports.

Other issues

• W alleged H had divested himself of shares in his businesses to key employees (A and B) around the time of the separation to conceal assets. H had then put off the payment dates for those interests, till 3 years after the war.
• W alleged H had misrepresented the true extent of resources available to him at the beginning of the litigation.
• H had manufactured the need to sell the family home to pressure W, which had led to the court making an order which would render W and the children homeless by the end of July.
• H loaned to B $1.75m in September 2023 and then ran up a debt to B’s company thereafter.
• H was deliberately reluctant to sell a yacht, even when a good offer was available.
• Following the sale of a corporate jet, H provided for the redemption of third party borrowing on the above yacht while leaving it on the family home causing the sale of the family home.

Findings

The judge’s recasting of the asset schedule left him with some £36.8m in H’s name and £1.7m in W’s name, a total of £38.5m.

It was found that the transfers from H, particularly a 20% transfer to A shortly before a large dividend payment, were intended to defeat W’s claim, not to incentivise the employees. He notionally added the value of these shares and dividends back to H’s assets.

H had overstated his financial difficulties and had been reluctant to sell the yacht. The judge concluded H’s evidence was of ‘limited confidence’ and that he had adopted a policy of saying ‘as little as possible’; [91]. However, it was also acknowledged that H had honoured previous court orders.

Judgment

• H’s finances have clearly been badly damaged by the war, but he has not been rendered penniless. He continues to control very significant businesses.
• The total assets to be divided broadly equally, with a slight adjustment in W’s favour. W was to receive a total of £20m and H £18.5m. The judge noted that both parties have lived at a much higher level than can be sustained now and the fall in standard of living should be broadly shared. The adjustment is made because W will be the primary carer of the children and will be in a difficult housing situation given the imminent sale of the family home.
• W would receive the net proceeds from the sale of the family home (c.£6.6m) and H would pay a lump sum to bring her total to £20m.
• The lump sum was to be paid in two instalments: approximately £2.4m within four months, and the balance of £9.3m within 12 months, or upon the sale of the yacht.
• Pending payment of the two lump sums, H will need to pay spousal periodical payments to W at a rate equivalent to the Bank of England Base Rate (currently 4.25% on the outstanding sum) because she is in due course to use the balance of the lump sum as an income fund.
• Child maintenance was set at £50,000 per child, per year, with CPI indexation.
• H to pay for the children’s private school fees, university tuition and reasonable medical expenses.
• W to meet the costs order already made for some £69,400 (to be deducted from the lump sum of £2.4m in 4 months).

The judge acknowledged the risk H was left with, holding illiquid business assets, and W receiving cash. However, this was balanced by noting that the risk had been priced into the assets’ value and that H had contributed to the situation through his conduct during the proceedings. The judgment concluded that finality was the most appropriate resolution given the circumstances and the substantial legal costs.