LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473

Judgment date: 22 November 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/473

Cusworth J. W’s sharing claim reduced by 40% on the basis of her ‘deplorable conduct’, through which the court had to view the case, and unequal contributions. The lack of readily quantifiable financial loss attributed to the conduct was no bar to the court considering such conduct.

Background

The parties met in 2010, married in August 2011, and separated in January 2023. The parties have one child, a daughter (‘X’). At the time they met, H’s then spouse was dying of cancer and H was vulnerable. W told H in the summer of 2011 (untruthfully) that she was about to become a High Court judge and that a swift wedding would be helpful for her career. W also assured H that she was a friend/colleague to legal and political luminaries.

W pleaded guilty in 2020 to two unrelated offences of fraud and dishonesty. H began to understand the true extent of her deceit at that time. W avoided a custodial sentence because H provided her compensation monies that she was required to pay as well as her legal fees.

Findings were made by Theis J in Children Act proceedings, including that W had subjected H to coercive and controlling behaviour, verbal and emotional abuse. H alleged that from 2019 until separation in January 2023, W was guilty of serious physical violence against him. Some of those incidents took place in front of X, who Theis J found had suffered serious emotional harm as a result. W was found to have made malicious allegations to another parent at school that H had sexually abused X, and in the Children Act proceedings that H had raped and sexually assaulted W. The police were taking forward a prosecution of W in relation to H’s allegations of coercive control.

The allegations and findings

The allegations and findings were as follows:

(i) The marriage was founded on deception and fraud, continuing for its duration. W falsely maintained she had become a High Court judge and demanded significant sums from H to pay for judicial trips and academic studies.

(ii) W was coercive, controlling, and abusive of H. W took control of H’s life through a combination of manipulations, untruths, verbal and latterly physical abuse. H was afraid of her and would do as she asked. Time spent with friends decreased and H felt embarrassed to share W’s physical abuse of him with others.

(iii) The court could not identify any fraudulent financial benefit of W’s decision to adopt both H’s surname and his forename, so no finding was made.

(iv) The court made no findings about W’s involvement with her ex-husband, who she had divorced shortly before marrying H. W continued to liaise and provide accommodation for her ex-husband and persuaded H to employ him as a house-sitter and security consultant. W had not informed H of her ex-husband’s true identity when they employed him.

(v) Significant sums were transferred to W on the basis of a number of untruths.

(vi) W’s allegations of coercion and control by H were rejected in their entirety.

The assets

H had retired from his successful career in the City by the time the parties met. His assets at the time of cohabitation totalled £21.6m. At the time of the final hearing, excluding £2m held for X, H’s assets were just over £22m. The lack of growth may have been due to his funding of the family’s living costs, his having made payments to W that she demanded, and the costs of two sets of litigation.

W brought one property in Leicester to the marriage, which she still owned and was subject to a secured charge to H for a £135,000 pre-marriage loan, with interest now over £208,000.

The two properties used as matrimonial homes, Park Street and North Farm, were held in joint names. Park Street had a net value of £4,365,000. North Farm had a net value of £2,910,000 if valued with adjacent farmland, and £1,940,000 without. Both Park Street and North Farm were matrimonial assets which were prima facie subject to the sharing principle, albeit W had made no actual financial contribution.

The law

Applying Miller; McFarlane and Standish, equal sharing of the matrimonial assets is the principled starting point, with the court going on to consider if there were any reasons why W’s entitlement should be set at less than 50%. The following factors might diminish W’s sharing claim:

(i) The farmland adjoining North Farm (commercially tenanted and farmed) was not treated as matrimonial despite it being in joint names.

(ii) W had made no financial contribution whatsoever.

(iii) W’s conduct would be inequitable to disregard.

Of the four distinct conduct scenarios in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, the court was dealing with ‘gross and obvious personal misconduct meted out by one party against the other’. The court considered the decisions of Peel J in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 and N v J [2024] EWFC 184 in which financial consequence was found to be a necessary ingredient for conduct to be reflected in the reward, even if not always easily measurable.

Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115 considered, specifically Macur LJ’s analysis of conduct providing ‘the glass’ through which an analysis can be conducted.

Held

The impact of coercive and controlling behaviour may well be hard to measure, but that does not mean the impact will not be present. There is a real risk of unfairness to victims of such behaviour if it is ignored as a result. W’s behaviour passed the ‘obvious and gross’ test. Her conduct would be the glass through which the court would assess fairness.

W’s notional 50% share of the matrimonial assets should be reduced by 40%, to £1,993,350. W’s share would be further reduced by £905,165 to account for sums W had already taken from H over the marriage and transferred to other accounts and overseas, and for sums she had already spent on a houseboat. W’s needs would not be assessed generously as a result of her behaviour, nor was she entitled to enjoy the marital standard of living any further. Her needs would not alter the award.