MRU v ECR (Financial Remedies) [2025] EWFC 218 (B)

Judgment date: 21 July 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/218

Deputy District Judge Rose. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The judge dealt with issues of conduct, cost orders and transparency.

Background

The marriage had been of some 20 years with seamless cohabitation and marriage; [13]. The wife was unrepresented at the hearing; [8].

An application for the press to attend had been granted, and a standard transparency order had been made which included not identifying the parties; [9]. The parties had been intensely scrutinised by the media, due to published stories of abuse by the respondent wife upon the applicant husband; [14]. The abuse documented included threats and actual violence, domestic abuse, and controlling and coercive behaviour; [14]. The wife had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced to four years of imprisonment before being released on licence; [14].

The children (three girls under 10 years old) resided with the husband following concluded Children Act 1989 proceedings which ordered indirect supervised contact with the wife; [4], [15]. The judge declined to hear a C100 application lodged by the wife for overnight staying contact as he was not ticketed for children, and the application had been lodged at short notice; [15].

Assets and liabilities

The marital pot was limited to: 1. the equity from the sale of the FMH, held to order by the applicant’s solicitor; and 2. the CETVs of the parties’ pensions; [20].

The judge noted that the needs of the parties outstripped the available assets; [23]. The husband had hard or commercial debts as well as disputed debts, which he accepted were predominantly non-marital, although the wife submitted that they were all non-marital; [24]. His claimed indebtedness totalled £102,415.00, and his overall net position, excluding his pension assets, was therefore -£102,415.00; [24].

The wife had commercial and contingent debts (her Student Loan and her legal fees from the criminal proceedings, payable upon a trigger being engaged); [26]. Her claimed indebtedness totalled £100,501.00, with her claimed net negative totalling -£99,287.00.

The judge found that, due to the lack of funds, each party would have to repay their respective debts once they could be met from income or formal debt management; [49]. The parties’ soft loans were not considered to be true debts for the purposes of the calculation; [50]. The judge declared it ‘plainly unconscionable’ for the husband to pay towards the wife’s criminal defence costs, and therefore excluded it from the calculation; [51].

The law, particularly the law regarding conduct and cost orders

The judge considered Miller v Miller: McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, particularly [138] of Miller, concerning the parties’ and the children’s needs, and the standard of living enjoyed during marriage; [38].

The judge also considered the s 25 checklist of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Amongst other things, he noted the that the husband’s needs outweighed the wife’s as the children lived with him; [40]. He was satisfied that the husband was maximising his earning capacity, but did not accept that the wife was unable to work; [41].

The judge considered s 25(2)(g) regarding conduct; [45]. He determined that it would be inequitable to disregard the findings of the Crown Court and the wife’s consequent incarceration, per Peel J’s comments at [40] of Tsvestkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 140; [45]. This conduct was deemed to have an impact on how the subsequent arrangement for the children would impact on the parties’ housing needs; [47]. The judge considered that the wife’s conduct would fall under the first category defined by Mostyn J at [34] of OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, ‘gross and obvious personal misconduct’ with a ‘financial consequence’.

The judge found that the wife’s conduct met the three-stage test established by Mostyn J in OG v AG at [43] because: 1. the allegations were already admitted; 2. the allegations were sufficiently serious or exceptional to warrant consideration; and 3. they were quantifiable; [48].

Outcome

The husband should receive 100% of the remaining funds held to order with the conveyancing solicitors to purchase a home for himself and for the children; [52]. There should be a pension sharing order in favour of the wife of one of the husband’s pensions in the amount of 98%, sufficient to equalise their overall pension pots, and the parties should retain their respective chattels, assets and debts, with a clean break; [52].

The husband sought costs of £7,200 for the final hearing; [53]. The judge noted that the husband’s open offer matched the final order at [52], and that therefore recoverable costs could be incurred pursuant to FPR 28.3(b); [53]. The wife said that her financial circumstances meant that she could not pay; [54]. On summary assessment, the judge determined that the wife should pay £7,200 in costs; [56].

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