In family finance cases, the golden rule is simple: disclose everything. The courts cannot divide what they cannot see. Yet the recent sequel judgment in TYB v CAR (Non-Disclosure) (No 2) [2025] EWFC 263 shows what happens when one party repeatedly refuses to play by the rules.
The Backstory – TYB v CAR [2023] EWFC 261 (B)
Back in 2023, Deputy District Judge Hodson faced a difficult choice. The husband had failed to provide proper financial disclosure, despite repeated opportunities. Instead of ploughing on to a final hearing with incomplete information, the judge reluctantly granted him one last chance. The message was clear: comply now, or face serious consequences.
Fast Forward to 2025 – Non-Disclosure Continues
Unfortunately, little changed. By the time the case returned in 2025, the husband had still not provided a full picture of his finances. The court had no reliable disclosure, no credible explanation, and no sign of engagement with the process.
This time, patience had run out. The judge concluded that the only way forward was to make findings based on the available evidence, drawing adverse inferences where necessary.
The Outcome
The judgment demonstrates the firm but fair tools available to the court in dealing with non-disclosers:
- Maintenance: The husband was ordered to pay £5,500 per month in maintenance to the wife. This figure reflected his historic earnings and lifestyle, rather than his (unsubstantiated) claims of financial difficulty.
- Arrears & Indemnities: He was required to clear arrears and indemnify the wife against debts he had wrongly left in her name.
- Costs: A costs order of nearly £39,000 was made against him, reflecting the unnecessary litigation caused by his failure to cooperate.
- Capital Claims Adjourned: The wife’s capital claims were adjourned for up to ten years, leaving the door open in case hidden assets surface.
Why This Matters for Practitioners
The two judgments taken together chart the journey from judicial forbearance to judicial firmness:
- Initial tolerance: Courts are reluctant to make final orders without disclosure, giving parties every chance to comply.
- Finality: Eventually, though, the need for closure outweighs the hope of voluntary compliance. The court will use its powers to infer, to adjust, and to penalise.
- Adverse inferences are powerful: When disclosure is withheld, judges can and will draw conclusions from lifestyle, spending, and the absence of evidence.
- Strategic risk: Non-disclosure doesn’t just fail — it often backfires, leading to worse outcomes than honest disclosure might have produced.
Final Thought
TYB v CAR is a cautionary tale in two parts. In 2023, the husband was given a reprieve; in 2025, the court called time. The lesson is as old as family finance itself: disclosure is not optional. Inch by inch, excuse by excuse, a non-discloser may delay the process — but eventually, the court will reach the finishing line, and it rarely ends well for the obstructive party.
