Work v Gray (Phase II: Computation and Distribution)

Work v Gray (Phase II: Computation and Distribution)

The court held that discounts should be applied to the value of illiquid assets based on the most reliable and up-to-date expert evidence, rejecting both the husband's excessive discounts and the wife's argument for no discounts. The court preferred the methodology of the wife's expert, which used updated market...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: William Randall Work; Respondent: Mandy Gray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedies After Divorce / Phase Ii: Computation and Distribution
Outcome
Further lump sum awarded to wife; computation of final division of assets ordered.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Ancillary Relief, Asset Division, Discounting of Illiquid Assets, Wells Sharing, Post Nuptial Agreements, Special Contribution
Family Law Financial Remedies Ancillary Relief Asset Division Discounting of Illiquid Assets Wells Sharing Post Nuptial Agreements Special Contribution

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Randall Work

Petitioner

Mandy Gray

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedies After Divorce / Phase Ii: Computation and Distribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discounts should be applied to the value of illiquid assets for the purpose of equal division
  2. 2 Whether the wife should be compensated for not receiving assets in specie (Wells-sharing)
  3. 3 What is the appropriate methodology for valuing complex investment portfolios in divorce proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that discounts should be applied to the value of illiquid assets based on the most reliable and up-to-date expert evidence, rejecting both the husband's excessive discounts and the wife's argument for no discounts. The court preferred the methodology of the wife's expert, which used updated market data, and determined the appropriate discounts asset-by-asset. The wife was awarded a further lump sum of $5,421,842 to achieve a fair 50% share of the net assets, reflecting appropriate discounts but not full gross value.

Court Disposition

Further lump sum awarded to wife; computation of final division of assets ordered.

Orders

  • Husband to pay wife a further lump sum of $5,421,842 to achieve equal division of net assets as at 31 December 2014, reflecting appropriate discounts.
  • If either party wishes to make further submissions on adjustments, the court will consider them before finalising the order.