JK v LM

JK v LM

The court divided the non-pension assets almost equally (50.8% to H, 49.2% to W) and pension assets 65%/35% in W’s favour, based on the needs of both parties and the welfare of the children. All rental properties were included in the asset pool due to their use during the marriage and to meet needs. Addback and conduct claims were rejected as not meeting the high threshold. Family loans evidenced as hard debts were included. The FMH was transferred to W (subject to mortgage release), Property 2 to H, and Property 3 subject to options to buy out the other or sale. A pension sharing order of 26.37% of W’s current employment pension was made in H’s favour. Clean break ordered.

Parties
Applicant: JK; Respondent: LM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Proceedings (divorce) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Final orders made for division of assets, pension sharing, and clean break; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Pension Sharing, Clean Break, Needs Principle, Children's Welfare, Addback Claims, Family Loans
Family Law Financial Remedies Division of Matrimonial Assets Pension Sharing Clean Break Needs Principle Children's Welfare Addback Claims +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 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 30
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JK

Applicant

LM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Proceedings (divorce) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets be divided following divorce?
  2. 2 Should any addback or conduct claims affect the asset division?
  3. 3 How should family loans be treated in the computation of assets?

Ratio Decidendi

The court divided the non-pension assets almost equally (50.8% to H, 49.2% to W) and pension assets 65%/35% in W’s favour, based on the needs of both parties and the welfare of the children. All rental properties were included in the asset pool due to their use during the marriage and to meet needs. Addback and conduct claims were rejected as not meeting the high threshold. Family loans evidenced as hard debts were included. The FMH was transferred to W (subject to mortgage release), Property 2 to H, and Property 3 subject to options to buy out the other or sale. A pension sharing order of 26.37% of W’s current employment pension was made in H’s favour. Clean break ordered.

Court Disposition

Final orders made for division of assets, pension sharing, and clean break; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The FMH to be transferred to W, subject to her releasing H from the mortgage within 6 months, failing which the property will be sold and proceeds paid to W.
  • Property 2 to be sold and proceeds paid to H.