H v H

H v H

The division of assets implemented in March 2008 was objectively fair and amounted to an equal division of the matrimonial assets as they then stood. The wife is not entitled to share in the husband's future earnings, as these are not a capital asset. However, she is entitled to a share of the capital assets of the business not included in the March 2008 division and a proportion of the surplus cash accrued since then. The appropriate remedy is an additional lump sum to the wife, not a complete reopening of the division. The husband's credibility was upheld, and litigation misconduct by either party did not affect the substantive outcome.

Parties
Petitioner (wife): H; Respondent (husband): H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted; additional lump sum awarded to wife; child maintenance ordered.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Valuation of Business Interests, Litigation Misconduct, Tax Implications in Divorce, Special Contribution Argument, Post Separation Accruals, Children's Maintenance
Family Law Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Assets Valuation of Business Interests Litigation Misconduct Tax Implications in Divorce Special Contribution Argument Post Separation Accruals +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Petitioner (wife)

H

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the division of assets implemented by the husband in March 2008 was objectively fair and should be upheld
  2. 2 Whether the wife is entitled to a share of the husband's business, including surplus cash accrued post-March 2008, other business assets, or future income
  3. 3 Whether litigation misconduct by either party should affect the outcome or costs

Ratio Decidendi

The division of assets implemented in March 2008 was objectively fair and amounted to an equal division of the matrimonial assets as they then stood. The wife is not entitled to share in the husband's future earnings, as these are not a capital asset. However, she is entitled to a share of the capital assets of the business not included in the March 2008 division and a proportion of the surplus cash accrued since then. The appropriate remedy is an additional lump sum to the wife, not a complete reopening of the division. The husband's credibility was upheld, and litigation misconduct by either party did not affect the substantive outcome.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted; additional lump sum awarded to wife; child maintenance ordered.

Orders

  • Wife awarded a lump sum of £7.5 million in addition to assets already received under the March 2008 division.
  • Child maintenance set at £50,000 per child per annum until end of tertiary education, with husband to pay educational and related expenses.