A man who successfully challenged his mother's final will is likely to recover the lion's share of...
When a party fails to disclose assets in divorce proceedings, the courts are entitled to draw appropriate inferences from the non-disclosure. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which the Family Court described the husband's conduct of the proceedings as 'woeful'.
The couple had met in 1989 and married in 1994. The husband owned a port business; the wife had given up work when the couple's two children were born. The husband's father had been very generous to him and the couple had lived an affluent lifestyle.
They separated in July 2022 and the wife issued a petition for divorce shortly afterwards. The husband initially did not engage in the proceedings or comply with court orders, and he eventually received a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court. The wife was also granted a freezing injunction against him.
Ruling on the wife's application for financial remedy, the Court noted that there were issues as to how truthful the husband's evidence had been. It had to decide whether he had deliberately lied and, if so, whether there was an explanation for those lies that did not support the wife's case that he had hidden assets. If there were no such explanation, the Court could take those lies into account in assessing his resources.
The wife had almost no assets and the Court rejected the suggestion that she could develop an earning capacity of her own, given her age, her lack of business experience and the fact that she had been out of the labour market for 30 years. The Court observed that it was not easy to decide where the truth lay in respect of the husband's assets. It was satisfied that he had given inaccurate and incomplete disclosure, and it was entitled to draw adverse inferences against him. It concluded that he was hiding significant amounts of money.
The Court concluded that there were total assets of £50 million, half of which were matrimonial assets. There was no reason why the wife should not receive half of the matrimonial assets, or £12.5 million. This accorded with the sharing principle and would more than cover her reasonable needs. Her award included the former matrimonial home and its contents, a flat, a lump sum of £10 million and a discharge of liabilities of nearly £400,000. The freezing injunction against the husband would remain in place until the wife's award was paid in full.