JK and LM [2026] EWFC 32 (B)

Judgment date: 11 February 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/32

Reardon J. Final financial remedy hearing resulting in an almost equal division of liquid marital assets following numerous irrelevant issues being raised by both parties.

Background

The parties married in September 2012. In November 2022, H filed a divorce application abroad which he eventually withdrew before filing a joint divorce application with W here. However, as HHJ Reardon notes ‘the damage had already been done’ and contested financial remedy proceedings about numerous issues followed. In addition to this, there were competing Family Law Act applications regarding occupation of the former matrimonial home as well as proceedings in relation to the arrangements for the parties’ two children (11 and 9 years of age). A final child arrangements order provided for the children to live with W and spend time with H on alternate weekends and school holidays.

Issues in dispute

This judgment is described by HHJ Reardon as being one that is ‘of no interest to lawyers’. Notwithstanding the almost equal division of liquid marital assets, various issues, as outlined below, were unsuccessfully pursued by the parties during the proceedings.

• There were largely discontinued conduct arguments about marital and post-separation expenditure by both parties. W sought add-backs in relation to £194,000 spent by H, alleging that H had not made ‘sensible financial decisions’ about things like interest rates and rent. No funds were notionally added back. HHJ Reardon said it was ‘disproportionate and unnecessary to address each item claimed separately’.
• W argued that a salary of c.£20,000 paid to H’s mother as part of the parties’ tax planning in 2021 was intended to be returned to the parties. This was described by HHJ Reardon as an unattractive argument as it would have been a fraudulent arrangement.
• W asserted that the court should oblige H to:
  • pay her for his 50% share of the mortgage repayments on the former matrimonial home which she had met since separation. As W had lived in the property, the judgment notes that any such claim (if it were to be considered) would be offset by a claim for occupation rent by H.
  • account to her for 50% of the rent on an untenanted historical family home. The court found that it would not be proportionate to enquire as to how this came to be.
• Both W and H tried to include liabilities in the ES2 that were not true liabilities and were removed by the court such as work on the former matrimonial home / rental properties (respectively) and day-to-day living expenses.
• There were three rental properties brought into the marriage; two by H and one by W. H argued W’s rental property had been matrimonialised but not his. The three rental properties were treated as marital assets because: (1) W had taken out a mortgage on her property during the marriage to support the purchase of one of the former family homes and it would be unfair to W for just H’s properties to be ringfenced; and (2) both parties were likely to need to rely on the rental properties to meet their needs.
• W alleged H removed £19,000 that was being held for one of their children, with W holding £19,000 for the other child. No order was made in this respect.
• H disputed the SJE surveyor valuation of the former matrimonial home. He did not ask questions of the expert or ask that they attend the hearing and attempted to rely on market appraisals from estate agents.

One of the only issues which was successfully raised related to loans made to W by her mother. They were found to be hard loans, in part due to written loan agreements with interest being incurred and repayments being made by W on a monthly basis, plus larger sums when W could afford it.

Overall outcome

HHJ Reardon determined that liquid assets (including three jointly owned properties, three rental properties and shares) were worth £1,622,201 and that the pension assets were valued at £743,320. More than £200,000 was spent on legal fees.

The parties agreed that there should be a clean break. The non-pension assets were divided 50.8%/49.2% in H’s favour. Pensions were divided to achieve equality of income on retirement. The court declined to share the W’s wholly non-marital pension entitlements as it was not necessary to do so to meet needs and the parties (aged 50) had many working years ahead with good income positions. HHJ Reardon did, however, share a portion of non-marital pension in the W’s current employment pension, taking into account H’s argument that had intended to use income from the rental properties in retirement and had therefore invested less into his pensions.

Practical takeaways:

• If you intend to challenge the valuation evidence of an SJE, ensure that questions are put to the expert and a direction is in place obliging the SJE to give oral evidence.
• Be wary of pursuing findings in relation to irrelevant issues.

This judgment has not been certified as citeable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.