MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28

Judgment date: 11 February 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/28

Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings with findings of non-disclosure against H. Final orders determined with reference to W’s needs.

Background

The parties met in 2001, started cohabiting in either 2001 (on W’s case) or 2004 (on H’s case), married on 26 February 2005 and separated in January 2024. It was a 19-year marriage plus premarital cohabitation with no children of the family.

Prior to cohabitation on either party’s cohabitation date:

• A trust known as the A Family Trust (the ‘first A Trust’) was set up by H. H produced no documentary evidence in relation to this Trust or the termination of it. The lack of documentary evidence ultimately supported a finding of non-disclosure by H.
• H had realised US$10m from the sale of shares in an internet start-up.
• H co-founded ‘the Group’ as equal shareholders with Mr CD, a friend of H. H’s shareholding in the Group was held via Holdings Ltd. The shares in Holdings Ltd were placed in the first A Trust.
• H loaned US$10m to Holdings Ltd. The loan was undocumented and unsecured. There was no ledger or director’s loan account in relation to the loan.

At the outset of the relationship, W worked as an equestrian competition coordinator. Following the marriage, W interned at media companies and became a journalist prior to commencing a career in equestrian activities, including competing, breeding and training horses.

Following their marriage, the standard of living of the parties included access to various rental properties around the world and luxury international travel. The parties’ personal expenses and H’s business expenses were met by H drawing down on the US$10m loan which had a nil balance by the final hearing. Monies from the Group, which were offset against H’s loan, were used to purchase a property worth £815,000 in W’s sole name in 2021. Peel J notes that:

‘There is a blurring between business and personal finances, and a tangible sense that H largely treated it all as one pot into which he dipped, leaving it to the accountants/bookkeepers to draw up a post facto reconciliation.’

W was not aware of the arrangement and did not know H was not receiving any remuneration from the Group.

Value of the Group

Throughout the marriage, the Group expanded largely through acquiring, building, integrating with other businesses, and then selling IT companies. There were no consolidated accounts for the Group, nor was there an SJE report on its value. Peel J had directed that the final hearing could continue without a valuation report, given the primary issue was ‘whether H … is the ultimate beneficial owner of the Group’. H’s position was that the global revenue for the Group for 2024 was forecast to be US$1bn, with earnings of $40m EBITDA (before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation). Despite this, H asserted that he did not take a salary, and received no direct financial benefit through the purchase, improvement and onwards sale of IT companies. H said he received ‘significant energetic, emotional, reputational community and branding benefits’ from the work. He said he had his expenses covered, so he did not need a salary.

H said that from 2024, the Group had run into financial difficulties. H resigned as CEO of Holdings Ltd in 2025. H attempted to produce an alleged nil value valuation of the business which his brother, an employee of the business, had prepared. This was not accepted by the court. The judgment notes that the alleged valuation said the predicted EBITDA of $40m ended up being $21.7m. H asserted that ‘it’s all over’ and that the Group would not survive. He referred to the workforce having been laid off, a reduction in credit lines, and litigation against the Group. This was disputed by W.

H’s non-disclosure

In 2017, the second A Trust (the ‘A Trust’) was established. H said the Holdings Ltd shares were rolled over into this Trust. Beyond the trust deed, and some (unhelpful) responses to questions by the trustees of the A Trust, no documentary evidence was produced by H around the A Trust. Mr Justice Peel found that H could have required the trustees to produce fuller answers to questions asked of them, and H hiding behind the trustees only fed into his finding that H had ‘something to hide’.

A few months prior to separation, W saw a whiteboard with writing on it about H, his business, and the trust. W saw this whiteboard again in May 2024 and took photographs of it. The whiteboard was described by Peel J as ‘critical evidence’. Among other drawings on it, it had an organogram of the Group and beneath it, there were two sets of arrows, one set from H ‘to the trust, to HL [Holdings Ltd] and on to an intermediate holding company’ with ‘UBO’ written above H, which was agreed by counsel to mean Ultimate Beneficial Owner. W said the handwriting was H’s; H disputed this. No conclusive findings could be made about the handwriting due to the lack of expert evidence in that respect. However, Peel J found that either H wrote the words or they were written by one or more persons at his direction. H’s denial that the whiteboard reflected the true position was found to infect H’s evidence on disclosure.

The law on non-disclosure is helpfully summarised at [68] and [69] of the judgment, followed by a summary on the court’s approach to trusts at [70].

Other assets and health of the Parties

At the time of the final hearing, the parties had undisputed assets worth circa £605,148 comprising the net equity in a home, funds in bank accounts, an anticipated inheritance by H, and liabilities, including a substantial litigation loan owing by W. Further, H was expecting a baby with his new partner. Both parties had health issues; W had been diagnosed with osteopenia after falling off a horse and had mental health issues; H had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had a ‘cautiously positive’ prognosis.

Judgment

Peel J found that, inter alia:

• H had not made full financial disclosure. He was found to have ‘access to undisclosed assets in the A Trust and/or the B Trust and/or in some other structure and/or held by individuals on his behalf’.
• The settlor, protector and trustees of the second A Trust acted on H’s instructions, and ‘there is no meaningful fetter on his ability to access whatever funds may be available’.
• H could be appointed as a beneficiary in the A Trust which would allow distributions to be made to H.
• H was found not to have disclosed another trust which was referred to in the judgment as the B Trust. Based on the (lack of) evidence, a finding was not able to be made about what assets are, or were, held within the B Trust.
• Despite H’s non-disclosure, the overall value of the Group is likely to be ‘limited, illiquid and speculative’.
• H’s wealth measured a few million pounds, as opposed to tens of millions.

Determining the matter with reference to W’s needs, the final order provided for:

• W to retain the house (net equity of £812,375).
• H to make two lump sum payments to W; the first to clear W’s debts, and the second a capitalised sum of £1,550,000 to allow W to meet her income needs.
• H to pay interim maintenance of £100,000 per annum until payment of the second lump sum.
• Chattels to be divided by agreement.

H was also ordered to indemnify W in respect of a loan by him to W’s business.

Peel J focused on W’s needs describing it as ‘the most practical way to resolve their finances’, noting that applying the sharing principle is difficult when there is no clear documentary evidence of the available assets and there was significant pre-marital wealth.

The final order made by Peel J differed from the open proposals made by both parties and despite the findings of non-disclosure against H, Peel J’s provisional view was that there should be no order as to costs.

Prior to making his final order, and following his findings about H’s beneficial interest in the Group, Peel J also considered whether he should adjourn the proceedings so that an SJE could report on the value of the Group. Peel J ultimately decided to proceed with the final hearing, focusing on the time and money that would be spent if such an order was made, W’s wish to bring the proceedings to an end, and the potential that little might be added by an SJE report given the current status of the business (which was at least in part being managed by insolvency practitioners).