When we think of asset dissipation and the “add-back” principle, we often picture yachts, casinos, or private jets. But in MNV v CNV [2025] EWFC 176 (B), Deputy District Judge Bradshaw dealt with these concepts in a far more relatable setting: a modest Midlands home, a VW van, and a husband who moved abroad to care for his elderly mother—taking a substantial slice of the matrimonial assets with him.
This case is a masterclass in how serious the consequences of financial decisions can be, even in low-asset cases. And it clarifies how the courts handle claims of dissipation and the potential for add-back when the matrimonial pot is small.
The Setup
The parties were long-term LGV drivers with a 14-year relationship and a teenage son. Their principal asset was the former matrimonial home, valued at around £181,000, with equity of £138,814. At separation, the husband held various assets—savings, a van, and a motorbike—amounting to approximately £50,000.
Post-separation, he transferred £17,000 to his brother abroad, later recovered it, sold the van for £27,000, and moved permanently to Country X to care for his mother, bringing the money (and some chattels) with him. The wife argued he had dissipated those funds and should not receive a further share of the remaining matrimonial assets.
The Add-Back Argument
The judge applied the established authorities on add-back, including Martin v Martin [1976], Norris v Norris [2003], Vaughan v Vaughan [2008], and MAP v MFP [2016]. From these, the following modern test was distilled:
- Was the expenditure reckless or wanton?
- Did it disadvantage the other spouse?
- Can the add-back be applied without frustrating the court’s ability to meet needs?
The judge found that the husband’s removal of £47,000 was:
- Reckless: He took the only liquid assets while knowing there were none left for his wife or child.
- Wanton: He prioritised his mother’s needs (post-separation) over those of his spouse and child.
- Disadvantageous: His actions left the wife with no accessible funds.
Yet, the court did not add the £47,000 back into the schedule for distribution. Why? Because this was a “needs” case, and doing so would have left the husband with no ability to meet his own housing need. Still, the judge notionally treated the £47,000 as received for purposes of fairness—not to be repaid, but to calibrate how much more (if any) the husband should receive.
The Result
The husband received a modest lump sum of £6,500 to help rehouse himself in Country X—where property prices were far lower—and the wife retained the FMH. She was not ordered to pay ongoing maintenance, and a clean break was achieved.
Had the wife not raised dissipation and add-back arguments effectively, the result may have looked quite different.
Key Lessons for Practitioners
- Dissipation can be found even in modest cases—it’s not just for HNW disputes.
- “Add-back” is a powerful tool, but not always one that leads to pound-for-pound redistribution.
- Judges may recognise dissipation but still decline a strict add-back if doing so would frustrate fairness or needs.
- Evidence of reckless or wanton conduct must be clear—but moral culpability is not always enough (see MAP v MFP).
- Consider proportionality of legal costs: here, the judge adjusted the husband's debt to reflect overspending on legal fees, citing YC v ZC [2022].
Final Thought
MNV v CNV demonstrates that even modest financial decisions can carry disproportionate consequences—and that the family court will examine behaviour with just as much scrutiny in a £150,000 case as in a £15 million one. For litigants and advisors alike, the message is this: the smaller the pot, the bigger the impact of each mistake.
