RKV v JWC [2025] EWFC 430 (B)

Judgment date: 14 November 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/430

Recorder Rhys Taylor. Final hearing in W’s financial remedy application before Recorder Taylor in a case involving significant non-disclosure and non-engagement by H.

See also RKV v JWC (No 2) [2025] EWFC 429 (B).

Background

H was 58, born in Country 1. W was 48, born in Country 2.

The parties started a relationship in 2000, both having been married and divorced previously. They were married in November 2005 and had two children during the marriage (aged 13 & 18). W applied for divorce on 3 November 2023 and her Form A was issued on 17 November 2023. This was a 23-year marriage.

The background to this case is full and complex.

In June 2015, both parties were arrested. They were released on bail in 2017 and charged in 2021. They were later convicted in 2023. W received a suspended sentence in 2023, and the sentencing judge remarked ‘I am however entirely satisfied that you only did what you did under your husband’s instructions … my clear conclusion is that he would not have been an easy man to say no to’.

H failed to surrender to bail in 2024. He had fled to Country 1 to escape sentence but returned to the UK after he had run out of road in Country 1.

H was sentenced in 2024 in his absence and a warrant was issued for his arrest. As a result of his conviction, he was no longer able to actively participate in the management of Company X. Company X was dissolved by Companies House in 2024 due to a failure to file accounts. The next day, Company Y was incorporated and H was the sole shareholder. H applied to strike this company off the register in February, the following month.

Shortly after the incorporation of Company Y, on 23 January 2024, Company Z was incorporated and H later became an 80% shareholder. Company Z sought to carry on the same work conducted by Company X, although H denied this.

H was released from prison in July 2025.

Throughout the proceedings, there were several satellite applications made. W applied for and obtained a freezing order, two successful applications were made by W under the Bankers Book Evidence Act 1879 to obtain H’s bank statements, along with MPS, LSPO and preservation of assets applications by W.

Since separation, H had also been making transfers to various third parties, including his daughter from a previous relationship totalling £530,000.

Discussion

The judge found H to be an unsatisfactory witness and generally preferred the wife’s evidence.

The first three days of the hearing were taken up by H’s relief from sanctions application against the consequences of an unless order which was triggered by H’s persistent non-disclosure and failure to engage with the proceedings. The judge granted H relief and the trial proceeded.

The case was to be determined by application of the sharing principle. Most issues were computational.

Computation

Many of the computational issues in the case came about as a result of H’s failure to engage with court directions, including obtaining valuation reports and engaging with the SJEs. In all these instances, the judge adopted the wife’s figures. The figures H did present to the court in respect of Companies X and Z were difficult to follow, ‘chaotic and opaque’.

W’s position as that Company Z was simply a continuum of Company X and was squarely matrimonial in character, seeking to share in its capital value. W ran an addback claim in relation to the £530,000 H had dissipated since separation. She also asked the court to infer that H had further undisclosed accounts containing the sum of £750,000.

H argued that Company Z had suffered significantly as a result of his conviction, particularly as H was no longer licensed to be involved. His response to W’s addback claims rested on what he said was a lack of substantial evidence from W for the kinds of figures she asked the court to infer.

W sought an indemnity from H in respect of any liability arising out of her involvement with Company X as company secretary. H’s position was that he would not order an indemnity unless he had security in relation to sharing of that liability.

Sharing claim

Property 1 was argued by H to be the first matrimonial home. W’s position was that she had acquired it in her sole name and with her own capital such that it should not be considered matrimonialised. She said the property ceased to be their matrimonial home and in 2010 the property was rented out with the income being paid into a sole name account of W’s.

Held

Much like the sentencing judge in the criminal proceedings, Recorder Taylor found H to be thoroughly dishonest, although he reminded himself of the Lucas direction throughout his judgment.

Computation

Save for monies received by one third party, the judge treated all of the £530,000 as sums having been warehoused or wantonly dissipated by H. Those sums were added back to H’s side of the ES2. Despite evidence of H clearly moving money around and his dishonest approach to the proceedings as a whole, the judge found there was not enough evidence to infer that a significant sum had been put out of reach. He declined to infer there was an additional £750,000 in H’s control.

In respect of the indemnity sought by W, the judge found he could not be clear what the extent of that liability would be. He ordered a reverse contingent lump sum payable by W in the event that a genuine HMRC liability occurred and an indemnity by way of undertaking on H to pay half.

Sharing claim

In respect of Property 1, and with an eye to Standish and that matrimonialisation does not necessarily mean 50/50, the judge held that 30% of the property should be on the ES2 as having been matrimonialised.

Company Z was held to be a continuum of Company X and was matrimonial.

Outcome

Both parties’ needs could be met by an outcome on the sharing basis. The matrimonial pot was divided 49%:51% in W’s favour.

H was ordered to pay a lump sum of £1.9m which could be effected by a transfer of the FMH to W and a balancing lump sum. To fund the balancing lump sum, orders for sale were made against two out of H’s three investment properties in London with W having sole conduct of sale. H was also ordered to pay costs assessed at £17,000.