In OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156 (B), His Honour Judge Edward Hess presided over a high-net-worth financial remedy dispute that, beneath its glittering spreadsheets and asset schedules, boiled down to something less glamorous—but no less vital: transparency, trust, and the true cost of confusion.
The case concerned a couple whose finances spanned multiple jurisdictions and asset classes. Yet what set it apart was not simply the scale (assets exceeding £9m), but the obstacle course the wife had to navigate in order to understand what was truly matrimonial property—a problem that stemmed from the husband’s management of his parents’ finances, and his initial resistance to fully explaining them.
The Disclosure Debacle
At the heart of the dispute was the husband’s assertion that various funds and investments were not his, but were held on behalf of his parents—particularly his father. This claim, he argued, exempted significant sums from the wife’s sharing claim.
But Judge Hess was unimpressed by how long it took the husband to present a coherent and well-evidenced account of these financial arrangements. In one striking paragraph, the judge wrote:
“The husband’s attitude could be characterised as being ‘just trust me, why are you troubling me with these unnecessary questions’ rather than attempting a proper explanation of a confusing situation with, potentially, significant amounts of money at stake.”
The eventual resolution of many of these issues only came after the failed private FDR, which significantly increased legal costs on both sides. Despite this, the judge declined to penalise either party in costs—finding that the wife had been justified in pursuing answers, and the husband had eventually provided clarity, albeit belatedly.
Costs: Not Just a Bottom Line
A particularly notable element of the case was the disparity in legal costs: the husband spent almost £490,000 on legal fees, while the wife spent £244,000. Both figures are eye-watering, but the difference between them sparked a debate: should the court adjust the asset division to reflect one party’s overspend?
The court ultimately said no—at least, not here. Despite citing established authority on adjusting for disproportionate costs (RH v RH, LS v SJ, YC v ZC), HHJ Hess found this wasn’t one of the “obvious” cases where penalising a party for excessive costs was justified.
This illustrates a key point for practitioners: the threshold for adjusting distribution due to costs is high, even when one party’s spending is arguably excessive. The court needs more than just a large figure—it needs clear evidence that those costs were wasteful or incurred unreasonably.
Practical Pointers
For family lawyers, the case offers several practical lessons:
- Third-party wealth is a red flag: If a party claims to manage assets on behalf of relatives, press for clarity early—and get it in writing. Vague assertions of “it’s not mine” won’t fly.
- Cost disparity alone won’t justify an adjustment: But a confusing or uncooperative approach to disclosure might.
- Transparency pays dividends: The husband’s eventual transparency helped his case—but only after significant financial and procedural cost.
Final Thought
OS v DT reminds us that even in high-value cases, the bedrock of fairness is procedural clarity. In a world of RSUs, offset accounts, and startup investments, the simplest principle still applies: if you're holding someone else’s money, you'd better be able to prove it. And if you can’t—or don’t try—you may end up paying for the confusion, one way or another.
