High-value divorce cases often turn on complex business valuations, competing expert evidence and sharply differing narratives. But in NI v AD [2025] EWHC 2997 (Fam), Mr Justice Trowell had to wrestle with something more fundamental: a family whose financial prospects were shaped not just by wealth, but by illiquidity, delay, mistrust and the long shadow of coercive control.
With net assets of around £6.5 million — but only £2.7 million in liquid funds — this case offers a clear illustration of how the court balances needs, liquidity, and transparency when the bulk of the wealth is tied up in an unlisted family business.
A Marriage of Eight Years, a Six-Year Separation, and a High-Value Dispute
The parties, now aged 37 and 47, separated in 2019 after an eight-year marriage. They share three children, now 11, 9 and 8. The wife, who had followed the husband to the UK from abroad, was the primary carer and had recently completed a psychology degree. Her earning capacity — and how realistically she could build a teaching career while caring for three children — became a live issue.
The husband, meanwhile, was one of three brothers behind a highly successful family business linked to “Product A”. His income came entirely through dividends, and the business structure involved a web of subsidiary companies, side ventures and inter-company loans.
This was not a simple asset schedule.
A Central Problem: Wealth That Exists on Paper, But Not in Cash
Although the overall asset pool was close to £6.5 million, the vast majority was locked inside the family company, Company A, where the husband held a one-third share.
Two features complicated matters:
- Illiquidity — A significant proportion of the husband’s wealth was in business shares that could not be realised without a sale agreed by all three brothers.
- A vast director’s loan account (DLA) — Standing at £5.6 million, funded by living costs, renovations, legal fees and business reinvestment. The court repeatedly pressed the husband on how he intended to repay it. His answers lacked clarity, and the judge concluded he was “not being open” on this issue.
These two features heavily shaped the eventual outcome.
The Non-Disclosure Issue: A Hidden Company Sale
Midway through the proceedings, the wife’s legal team discovered that a subsidiary company — Company C — had been sold for £6 million on 1 October 2025.
The husband had:
- Failed to mention the sale in his section 25 statement (filed the day before the sale);
- Failed to mention it in a later statement filed after the sale;
- Failed to tell the court or the jointly instructed accountant.
The judge was blunt: the husband had concealed the sale because he believed it would harm his case.
This finding significantly impacted credibility and valuation.
Valuation Battles — and the Court’s Practical Approach
The two forensic accountants disagreed sharply on:
- Multipliers for valuing the main operating company
- The value of various subsidiaries
- The treatment of the director’s loan
- Whether the husband’s income was £168,000 or £1.1 million per year
Justice Trowell adopted a pragmatic middle-ground. He:
- Placed £6 million on the sold company
- Applied an EBITDA multiplier of 8 for the core trading company
- Discounted certain loss-making subsidiaries
- Rejected a full 30% minority discount, describing it as an illiquidity indicator rather than a real-world reflection of what the husband would receive
This resulted in liquid assets of £2.7m and illiquid business interests of £3.8m.
Needs Drive the Outcome
Despite the wife arguing sharing, the judge concluded this was a needs case. Key reasons:
- It was a short marriage
- Most of the wealth arose post-separation
- Liquidity constraints made equal sharing artificial
The wife needed £2.2 million to buy a home near the children’s schools, plus her outstanding legal fees. She was therefore awarded:
- £2.23 million in capital (including a lump sum from the husband)
- Spousal maintenance of £73,300 per year for three years, then £57,800 per year until June 2036
- Child maintenance at £10,000 per child per year
- School fees
The husband kept the illiquid business assets — and the DLA problem.
Why This Case Matters
NI v AD is a cautionary tale that highlights:
- Liquidity matters as much as headline wealth
£3.8 million in shares is of little use in paying rent or school fees.
- Transparency is non-negotiable
Failing to disclose the sale of Company C materially damaged the husband’s credibility.
- Needs remain the touchstone
Even in high-net-worth cases, the court will prioritise housing and income needs for the primary carer and children.
- Courts will scrutinise business structures — firmly
Opaque company arrangements and unclear director’s loan arrangements invite judicial scepticism.
