JB v RB [2025] EWFC 194 (B)

Judgment date: 2 July 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/194

District Judge Akers (sitting as a judge in the Family Court at Huddersfield). This case involved final financial remedy proceedings between JB (the Wife) and RB (the Husband) following the breakdown of a long marriage. The dispute centred on the division of the former family home (FFH), spousal maintenance, and the classification of certain debts as ‘soft loans’.

Background

The parties cohabited from 2005, married in 2006, and separated in 2023. They have four children: J (18), S (16), T (11), and F (5), all of whom live with the Wife in the FMH. The Wife, aged 42, is an office manager earning £26,840 per annum ([6]). The Husband, aged 45, runs a plant hire business and is the sole director of a construction company. He declared earnings of £69,993, though the Wife alleged he disguised income through business accounts ([7], [39]–[40)]).

The FMH, valued at approximately £911,370, was the main asset. The Wife sought £811,397 from the sale proceeds to rehouse herself and the children; repay debts, and cover income needs, while the Husband proposed a 57:43 division ([12], [14]).

Key disputes

A significant issue concerned loans made by the Wife's parents. She argued these were formal debts, but the Husband contended they were ‘soft loans’. Applying P v Q [2022] EWFC B9, the court agreed with the Husband, finding that while legally enforceable, such loans were unlikely to be pursued due to the familial relationship ([26]–[28], [52]).

The Wife also asserted that the Husband's business was worth over £1 million. The court rejected this, finding no evidence to support her valuation and concluding that the business functioned primarily as an income stream rather than a saleable asset ([36]–[38]).

The Wife's claim that the parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle was also dismissed. The court found that the family's lifestyle was comfortable but not extravagant, with modest holidays, vehicles, and clothing ([41]–[45]).

Section 25 analysis

The court held that the wife could be appropriately rehoused with £450,000–£500,000, while the Husband could also secure a four-bedroom property in nearby areas for £250,000–£400,000 ([53]–[60], [73]).

Regarding income needs, the Wife's claim of £8,081 per month was deemed ‘fanciful’. The Husband's stated £9,000 monthly needs were also considered unrealistic ([49]–[50]). Both parties were reminded that their post-separation lifestyles must be scaled back.

Outcome

From the sale of the FMH, the Wife was awarded £560,000 (61.45%), while the Husband received the remaining 38.55%. Any surplus over £1 million from the sale would be split equally ([75]).

The Wife was awarded capitalised spousal maintenance of £60,000, equivalent to £2,500 per month over two years, to achieve a clean break ([71]–[72]).

Regarding education, the court accepted that J should remain in private education until completing his A-levels in 2026, with the Husband meeting these costs. However, S, who had completed GCSEs, would transition to state education due to financial constraints ([76]–[77]).

The Wife retained the contents of the FFH (except two dog-ash caskets), and a car was formally transferred to her ([86]–[87]).

No costs order was made, though the issue of costs related to the Wife's earlier expert valuation application was deferred for a separate hearing ([80], [89]).