FZ v SZ (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1630 (Fam) (05 July 2010)

FZ v SZ (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1630 (Fam) (05 July 2010)

Both parties were guilty of conduct under s25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, but as the misconduct was balanced, no financial adjustment was made to the award. The court found the wife's allegations of asset dissipation and forgery were not made out, and the husband's defective disclosure did not amount to conduct. The court held that Hildebrand documents obtained from an accessible, non-password-protected family computer were admissible. The division of assets required creative treatment due to the speculative and hard-to-value nature of the husband's business interests.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1630 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant/wife: FZ; First Respondent/husband: SZ; Second Respondent: The Trustees/Managers of the CPL Pension PLAN; Intervener: SZA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings in Divorce / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted; no adjustment for conduct as both parties equally at fault.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Conduct Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 S25(2)(g), Asset Valuation, Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure and Hildebrand Documents, Occupation and Residence Orders, Costs
Family Law Ancillary Relief Conduct Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 S25(2)(g) Asset Valuation Freezing Injunctions Disclosure and Hildebrand Documents Occupation and Residence Orders Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 30
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FZ

Applicant/wife

SZ

First Respondent/husband

The Trustees/Managers of the CPL Pension PLAN

Second Respondent

SZA

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings in Divorce / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate financial remedy (ancillary relief) in light of the parties' conduct and the valuation of complex assets?
  2. 2 Does the conduct of either party under s25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 warrant adjustment of the award?
  3. 3 How should hard-to-value and risk-laden assets be treated in the division?

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties were guilty of conduct under s25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, but as the misconduct was balanced, no financial adjustment was made to the award. The court found the wife's allegations of asset dissipation and forgery were not made out, and the husband's defective disclosure did not amount to conduct. The court held that Hildebrand documents obtained from an accessible, non-password-protected family computer were admissible. The division of assets required creative treatment due to the speculative and hard-to-value nature of the husband's business interests.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted; no adjustment for conduct as both parties equally at fault.

Orders

  • Financial remedy order to be made (details not in extract)
  • No adjustment for conduct under s25(2)(g)