OG v AG

OG v AG

The court applied the equal sharing principle to matrimonial assets, imposed a competitor discount solely on the husband for setting up a competing business, penalised both parties in costs for litigation misconduct and unreasonable negotiation, and rejected further arbitrary departure from equality for conduct. The husband's share was reduced by competitor discount and costs penalty, but not by additional sanctions. Child support and school fees were determined based on attributed income and statutory formula.

Parties
Applicant: OG; Respondent: AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Cross Applications for Financial Remedies (divorce) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Assets divided with competitor discount and costs penalty imposed on husband; wife receives majority share. Clean break ordered. Child support and school fees ordered.
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Assets, Litigation Misconduct, Non Disclosure, Conduct Penalties, Child Support, Company Valuation, Competitor Discount, Costs Orders
Family Law Matrimonial Property Financial Remedies Division of Matrimonial Assets Litigation Misconduct Non Disclosure Conduct Penalties Child Support +3 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OG

Applicant

AG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cross Applications for Financial Remedies (divorce) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should matrimonial assets be divided given the husband's conduct and creation of a competitor business?
  2. 2 Should discounts be applied to company valuation for Covid-19, Brexit, and competitor business?
  3. 3 What penalty in costs is appropriate for litigation misconduct and unreasonable negotiation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the equal sharing principle to matrimonial assets, imposed a competitor discount solely on the husband for setting up a competing business, penalised both parties in costs for litigation misconduct and unreasonable negotiation, and rejected further arbitrary departure from equality for conduct. The husband's share was reduced by competitor discount and costs penalty, but not by additional sanctions. Child support and school fees were determined based on attributed income and statutory formula.

Court Disposition

Assets divided with competitor discount and costs penalty imposed on husband; wife receives majority share. Clean break ordered. Child support and school fees ordered.

Orders

  • Flat C transferred to husband; other properties to wife; wife assumes HMRC debt.
  • Company (X) to buy husband's shares for £5,353,821, with deductions for director's loan, balancing payment, competitor discount, and costs penalty.