TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)

Judgment date: 25 June 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/1659

Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Final hearing in a financial remedies matter, dealing with issues of interim provision, non-disclosure, conduct and post-separation accrual.

Factual and procedural background

H and W began cohabiting in 2000/2001 when they were in their twenties. They have three children together, only one is still a minor. They both contributed to their two decades of family life equally: H running the family business and W running the family home.

The family business consisted of ‘ABC’ (a trading company) and ‘DEF’ (a holding company) and was engaged in the buying, selling and renting of heavy plant machinery. It was a lucrative business; the parties' assets were found to total £30,471,558.

The parties separated in 2021 and have been engaged in litigation ever since. The procedural history of this case is unfortunate, and Mr Warshaw KC took the unusual decision to allow a final hearing to take place without an FDR hearing, with the parties required to attend a roundtable meeting on the first day of the hearing; [31]. The events leading to this included their first appointment being cancelled by the court after the parties had prepared entirely for it – [16] – and a one-year delay before it was relisted; [18].

The costs in this case totalled £1.4m; [34]. Mr Warshaw KC made note of the fact that whilst this was extremely high, the costs would be c.5% of the assets and **‘in the wider world, and in other more commercial contexts such as the sale of business, it is not unusual to see fees at this level or indeed higher’.

Interim provision, non-disclosure, conduct and post-separation accrual

Interim provision: [51]–[57]

Upon the parties’ separation, H stopped a number of provisions that were available to W during the marriage (such c.£1,000 per week and access to a credit card). This meant that in the long period for which these parties’ proceedings have dragged on, W had to cut her cloth significantly whilst H enjoyed a lavish standard of living referable to that during the marriage. The judge noted that whilst he was not to ‘punish’ either party and did not consider this ‘conduct’, he would ‘bear in mind that at a time when W was trying to provide the children with a stable home, H undermined her from doing do by failing her with fair and adequate interim provision’; [57].

In a similar vein, the judge found that in this time H had deliberately made significant payments to the children to ‘humiliate’ **W and determined that H’s actions to undermine the harmony of the home would be considered in the overall outcome of the case; [45].

Non-disclosure: [58]–[66]

The judge found himself entitled to draw adverse inferences against H for his lax approach to the duty of full and frank disclosure, having reminded himself of Moylan LJ’s guidance in Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482.

In discussing H’s non-disclosure, the judge identified that H lied in his schedule of deficiencies – [60] – was misleading in his presentation of an asset in his Form E – [61] – and gave insufficient disclosure in relation to the family business to the parties' SJE; [62].

The judge also deprecated W’s counsel for a cross-examination of H and the SJE which intended to demonstrate company accounts were false. Such a task was impossible to undertake without the allegations being set out in advance and therefore made no findings about that issue; [66].

Conduct: [67]–[74]

Having cited Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130, [67], the judge explained that he had previously made directions for W’s conduct case to be properly pleaded, having ‘limped on’ thus far; [68]. All eight of W’s accusations eventually fell short of conduct; [70].

The family business, ABC, went into administration during these proceedings. The judge found that whilst the timing of this caused W alarm, H ‘traded through a difficult period and reorganised his ventures’ and was clear that W should not have raised this as conduct; [73]. This was influential for the judge, who reduced W’s costs entitlement from half to one-third as a result of this; [108].

Post separation accrual: [89]–[100]

The judge had to consider arguments of post-separation accrual. He decided that some aspects of the arguments represented work generated during the marriage, relying heavily on Hart v Hart [2018] 1 FLR 1283. The key decisions in relation to the work (being the identification and purchase of a site and investment into a project) took place during the marriage.

Nonetheless, there was some form of post-separation accrual and, taking the approaches of Mr Trowell KC (as he then was) in GA v EL [2023] EWFC 206, took this into account holistically (re-wording Mr Trowell KC’s ‘by and large’ phrasing).

Computation of assets, decision and costs

The judge found the assets to be worth c.£30.4m; [85]. Counsel for H sought to raise arguments about the valuation of the business (due to omission of a mortgage liability) after the circulation of the judgment. The judge found that the reliability of H’s documents had been deficient, and he would not allow this issue to be considered in computation. This was not unfair to H: the value of the business had been made difficult by H’s non-disclosure and ‘if anything’ it was a value that was unfair to W; [79].

W’s open position was for 42.5% of the total assets; [87]. H’s offer was for W to receive 21% of the total assets; [86]. Overall, Mr Warshaw KC gave W 43% of the total assets, [103], structured on a clean break basis; [102]. As above, there were serious findings against H and so he was to pay one-third of W’s costs; [108].