Featured Image

13 March 2025

DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B): A £1.3 Million Litigation Bill and Lessons on Efficiency, Conduct, and Transparency

At first glance, DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B) appears to be a straightforward financial remedy case—a 19-year marriage, an agreed equal division of assets, and no significant conduct arguments. But beneath the surface, this case highlights several key issues for family law practitioners:

  • The staggering cost of litigation—a combined £1.3 million in legal fees.
  • The consequences of inefficient case management, particularly non-compliance with the Efficiency Statement.
  • The continued judicial push for greater transparency, with the judgment being published despite objections.
  1. The £1.3 Million Legal Bill: A Case That Should Have Settled Earlier

The headline figure? £1.3 million spent on legal fees.

  • The wife (W) spent £566,289 on the financial remedy proceedings and an additional £220,148 on private law children proceedings.
  • The husband (H) spent £378,611 on the financial remedy case and £115,703 on the children proceedings.

This raises an important question: Why did a case with no major disputes over legal principles end up costing so much?

Both parties agreed from the outset that:
The assets should be divided equally.
There was no need for a maintenance claim—it would be a clean break case.
The assets were sufficient to meet both parties’ needs.

The disagreement? How to calculate the final asset pool and who should pay whom.

  1. The Efficiency Statement Breach: Non-Compliance and the Court’s Frustration

The judgment makes clear that the parties failed to properly comply with the Efficiency Statement (11 January 2022), particularly regarding the Chronology.

  • The applicant (W) failed to produce a neutral composite Chronology in line with paragraph 21(c) of the Efficiency Statement.
  • Instead, the court was presented with two competing versions, which wasted time and resources.
  • Recorder Allen KC explicitly referenced Peel J’s warning in GA v EL [2024] that such breaches are "wholly unacceptable."

Why does this matter? Because courts are increasingly focused on efficient case management. Non-compliance with procedural rules can lead to judicial criticism, wasted costs, and delays.

  1. Conduct: When Bad Behaviour Doesn’t Affect the Award

W presented evidence that H had engaged in abusive and offensive conduct post-separation, including sending misogynistic and threatening messages.

  • H’s own barrister admitted his behaviour was “wholly unacceptable.”
  • W’s team tried to use this to frame the case, even though they never formally pleaded conduct as a factor.

But did it impact the financial award? No.

The court ruled that bad behaviour alone is not enough to adjust the financial split unless:
It is of a "highly exceptional nature" (N v J [2024] EWFC 184).
There is an identifiable financial consequence (Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2024] 1 FLR 937).

Since W could not prove a financial link, the court ignored H’s misconduct in the final asset division.

  1. Transparency: Why This Judgment Was Published Despite Objections

H objected to publication, arguing that:
There were no novel legal points in the judgment.
There was no wider public interest in the case.
The children’s privacy could be affected.

W did not oppose publication, provided that the judgment was fully anonymised.

The Court’s Decision: Publish It.

Recorder Allen KC applied the balancing test from Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593, weighing:

The public interest in open justice (ECHR Article 10).

The privacy rights of the family (ECHR Article 8).

Ultimately, the court ruled that:

  • There is a presumption in favour of publication, even where no legal precedent is set.
  • Public accountability matters in financial remedy cases, particularly where litigation conduct is an issue.
  • The judgment should be fully anonymised, but the public has a right to see how financial disputes are resolved.

This aligns with the 2024 Transparency Practice Guidance, which encourages greater publication of financial remedy judgments.

  1. Final Financial Outcome: The Court’s Decision

After lengthy disputes over asset valuation, tax liabilities, and loan repayments, the court ruled:

  • H to pay W a lump sum of £510,000 (far lower than her £780,000 claim but higher than his £60,000 offer).
  • The couple’s £13.8 million in assets to be split equally.
  • A contested loan to be subject to “Wells sharing”, meaning W would get a share only if it was repaid.
  • H’s tax liabilities were NOT deducted from the asset pool, as the court was unconvinced he would actually pay them.
  • Both parents to contribute £200,000 each to the children’s education fund.
  • Child maintenance of £7,500 per year per child, replacing a previous CMS order.

Final Thoughts: A Case Study in High-Conflict Divorce Litigation

At its core, DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B) is a cautionary tale about the cost of financial disputes, inefficiency in litigation, and the limits of conduct arguments.

For family lawyers, the key lessons are:

  • Early settlement is crucial—protracted disputes over asset valuation can be ruinously expensive.
  • Procedural compliance matters—courts expect efficiency, and failure to comply can waste costs and time.
  • Conduct rarely affects financial awards—without a financial impact, even extreme behaviour may be ignored.
  • Transparency is here to stay—clients must expect their financial disputes to be public, unless they have strong reasons to argue otherwise.

With £1.3 million spent in legal fees, this case proves that even “straightforward” financial disputes can become complex, high-stakes battles. Practitioners should take note—and advise their clients accordingly.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: case law, costs, litigation conduct, litigation misconduct, transparency, wells
Featured Image

10 March 2025

From Bitcoin to Football Clubs: The High-Stakes Divorce of Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1

The financial remedy case of Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1 is a textbook example of a high-net-worth divorce gone awry. With £27 million at stake, a disputed Bitcoin fortune, a women’s football club sale, and complex tax liabilities, the case raises key issues for family lawyers dealing with long marriages, illiquid assets, and corporate shareholdings.

Here’s what family law practitioners need to know about this decision and the practical lessons it offers.

The Case: A Wealthy but Messy Divorce

Diane Liza Rosemin-Culligan (the wife) and Anthony David Culligan (the husband) had a marriage spanning 40 years. While both agreed that a broadly equal division of assets was appropriate, the fight was over how that division should be structured.

The key issues before Mr Justice MacDonald included:

  1. The valuation and division of the husband’s shares in Colendi, a fintech company.
  2. Whether the wife’s consultancy agreement—paying her £750,000 a year—was actually deferred consideration for the sale of her football club.
  3. Who should bear the significant tax liabilities, including those arising from the husband's U.S. citizenship.
  4. The treatment of the Bitcoin fortune, which had been used to fund both parties’ business ventures.
  5. Allegations of litigation misconduct and non-disclosure by both parties.

Despite the eye-watering sums involved, this case illustrates familiar legal issues: the treatment of illiquid assets, the challenge of attributing hidden income, and the impact of conduct on financial remedy claims.

Key Legal Issues & Lessons for Practitioners

  1. Valuation of Illiquid Assets – The Colendi Shares

A major dispute centred around the husband’s 3.6% shareholding in Colendi, a fintech company that had recently acquired his previous business, SETL Limited.

  • The single joint expert valued the husband’s Colendi shares at £19 million.
  • However, the shares were held via a nominee company, meaning they were subject to transfer restrictions that complicated their division.
  • The court had to determine whether a direct share transfer to the wife was possible—or whether a contingent lump sum should be ordered instead.

When dealing with business assets, transfer restrictions and nominee structures can limit enforceability. Ensure early expert valuation and consider alternative forms of division (e.g., deferred lump sums).

  1. Was the Wife’s £750,000 Salary a “Disguised Asset” in the Football Club Sale?

The wife had built and sold ELSA Sports Services Limited, which owned the London City Lionesses football club. She agreed to a £6 million sale price, but:

  • She also entered into a consultancy agreement, earning her £750,000 per year for four years.
  • The husband argued that this was not genuine post-marital income but deferred consideration for the club’s sale, designed to shield the money from the divorce settlement.
  • The court found that while the consultancy payments were partly legitimate, they should be treated as part of the matrimonial assets.

Courts look beyond the surface of financial transactions—if a deal artificially defers income, it may be reclassified as an asset for division.

  1. The Tax Nightmare of the “Accidental American”

The husband was an “accidental American”—born in the U.S. but with no real ties there. However, this triggered massive U.S. tax liabilities, including:

  • Capital gains tax on Bitcoin sales.
  • Tax on U.K. property disposals.
  • A potential U.S. tax charge on any asset transfers in the divorce.

The court accepted expert evidence that the husband’s tax liabilities ranged from £1.4 million to £1.7 million. The wife sought to avoid any responsibility for these debts, arguing that she should not suffer from her husband’s citizenship status.

The court ruled that:

  • The husband must bear his own U.S. tax burden.
  • The wife should not be exposed to unpredictable foreign tax risks.

International tax exposure can drastically affect financial remedy settlements. In cases involving U.S. citizens, specialist tax advice is essential.

  1. Bitcoin Fortunes & Hidden Assets

The case revealed a Bitcoin goldmine:

  • The husband had purchased over 1,000 Bitcoin in 2012 for £10,000, which skyrocketed in value to £20 million in 2017.
  • The funds had been used throughout the marriage to finance both the husband’s fintech ventures and the wife’s football club.
  • The wife accused the husband of hiding additional cryptocurrency wallets, which he later disclosed contained £371,000 in undisclosed Bitcoin.

The court ruled that while the missing Bitcoin was not enough to justify an inference of wider concealment, the husband’s failure to disclose it earlier was litigation misconduct.

Cryptocurrency assets are notoriously difficult to track, making full disclosure essential. Consider early forensic tracing of crypto transactions.

  1. Litigation Misconduct and the Cost of Delay

Both parties accused each other of bad litigation conduct:

  • The husband was penalised for delayed disclosure of assets, including the Bitcoin wallets and Colendi shareholding structure.
  • The wife was criticised for a lack of transparency in the football club sale, failing to disclose documents until compelled by court order.

While neither party’s conduct met the high threshold for reducing their financial award under s.25(1)(g) MCA 1973, the court did impose costs penalties on the husband for disclosure failures.

Non-disclosure and litigation misconduct won’t necessarily affect the final award, but they will increase costs exposure. Ensure early compliance with disclosure obligations to avoid judicial criticism.

The Court’s Decision: A “Wells Sharing” Approach

Given the illiquid nature of the Colendi shares, the court adopted a Wells sharing approach (Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476), ensuring that both parties shared the risks and rewards of future value fluctuations.

The final order included:
The wife retaining the £7 million former matrimonial home.
The husband keeping his Colendi shares but paying the wife 15% of any future proceeds.
A lump sum payment to equalise liquid assets.
Each party keeping their own businesses and pensions.
The husband bearing his own U.S. tax liabilities.

Final Thoughts: Key Takeaways for Family Lawyers

  1. Illiquid business assets require creative structuring – Courts are increasingly using Wells sharing to divide risky corporate holdings.
  2. Disguised income can be reclassified as a matrimonial asset – Consultancy agreements, bonuses, or deferred deals should be scrutinised.
  3. International tax liabilities can derail settlements – Clients with U.S. citizenship need specialist tax advice early.
  4. Cryptocurrency must be fully disclosed – Courts take non-disclosure of Bitcoin seriously.
  5. Litigation misconduct leads to costs penalties – Delays and strategic non-disclosure can backfire badly.

Culligan v Culligan is a case study in complex asset division—and a reminder that transparency and careful planning are key in high-net-worth divorces.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: bitcoin, case law, cryptocurrency, culligan, football clubs, litigation conduct, litigation misconduct
Featured Image

20 February 2025

Maintenance Pending Suit: The Art of Holding the Financial Ring – Lessons from SM v BA [2025] EWFC 28

When ultra-high-net-worth couples divorce, the legal battles aren’t just about the final financial settlement—they’re also about how much one party should receive in the interim. The case of SM v BA [2025] EWFC 28 saw the court awarding the wife £29,750 per month in maintenance pending suit (MPS), despite the husband describing her application as “rapacious” and “full of errors.”

This case provides an important reminder of the legal test for MPS, how the courts balance fairness, needs, and the marital standard of living, and why interim awards should not be viewed as a “mini final hearing.”

What Is Maintenance Pending Suit?

Maintenance pending suit (MPS) is a temporary financial order made under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It is designed to provide one party with reasonable maintenance while divorce and financial remedy proceedings are ongoing.

MPS is often sought in cases where one party controls the wealth and the other does not have immediate access to funds. It is particularly important in high-net-worth cases where lifestyle expectations and financial commitments are significant.

The Legal Test for MPS

The law on MPS is well established. The key principles come from TL v ML & Others [2006] 1 FLR 1263, where Mostyn J (then QC) summarised the test:

  1. The sole criterion is “reasonableness”, which is synonymous with fairness.
  2. The marital standard of living is a very important factor, though this does not mean the court will simply replicate it.
  3. A specific MPS budget should be provided, which should exclude capital or long-term expenses best dealt with at the final hearing.
  4. If disclosure is inadequate, the court can make “robust assumptions” about a party’s ability to pay and err in favour of the applicant.
  5. Where a party has historically been supported by third-party wealth, the court may assume that this support will continue, at least until the final hearing.

These principles were later refined in Rattan v Kuwad [2021] 2 FLR 817, where the Court of Appeal confirmed:

  • The focus is on immediate needs—but “immediate” does not mean “emergency-only” provision.
  • The marital standard of living remains relevant but does not have to be fully replicated.
  • The approach to MPS should be flexible, reflecting the circumstances of the case.

SM v BA: A Clash Over £29,750 Per Month

The Background

  • The wife (SM) sought £43,995 per month plus the payment of various household and family costs, totalling nearly £700,000 per year.
  • The husband (BA) argued that £24,438 per month was more appropriate, claiming that the wife’s demands were exaggerated.
  • The court had previously ordered interim maintenance of £29,500 per month, but the wife now sought an increase due to alleged additional costs.

Key Issues Before the Court

  1. What level of maintenance was “reasonable” on an interim basis?
  2. Should the previous agreement of £29,500 per month be upheld or revised?
  3. Was the husband’s financial disclosure adequate?
  4. Did the wife’s claims amount to forensic exaggeration?

The Court’s Decision

  1. Maintenance Set at £29,750 Per Month

The court ordered the husband to pay £29,750 per month, only a small increase from the previous £29,500 per month.

Key factors in this decision:

  • The marital standard of living was “clearly very high,” even if both parties had slightly exaggerated or downplayed its extent.
  • The amount was close to the level already agreed between the parties, reducing the need for major revision.
  • The wife’s budget contained some forensic exaggeration, but the court did not accept the husband’s argument that her claims were excessive across the board.
  1. No Automatic Replication of Marital Lifestyle

The court rejected the idea that MPS should automatically maintain the exact same standard of living. Instead, it emphasised that the award should be fair and reasonable based on the available resources.

This reflects the principle from M v M (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2002] 2 FLR 123, where Charles J stated that the court must not simply replicate the status quo but should instead assess what is reasonable in all the circumstances.

  1. Robust Assumptions About the Husband’s Wealth

The husband argued that he could not afford more than £24,438 per month and disputed the inclusion of certain dividend income in his financial resources.

The court, however, found that:

  • The husband’s disclosure was incomplete, meaning the court was entitled to draw robust assumptions about his wealth.
  • There were “additional monies” available to the husband through family business interests, which he had not fully disclosed.
  • The husband’s past payments of £29,500 per month suggested affordability, despite his argument that it was too high.

This follows the principle from MG v GM (MPS: LSPO) [2023] 1 FLR 253, where Peel J stated that the court can make reasonable inferences when faced with incomplete disclosure.

Key Lessons for Family Law Practitioners

  1. MPS Is About Holding the Financial Ring, Not Deciding the Final Outcome
  • The purpose of MPS is to keep things stable until the final hearing.
  • Clients should be advised not to overreach, as forensic exaggeration may weaken their credibility.
  • Equally, the paying party should be cautious about downplaying their wealth, as courts can draw adverse inferences.
  1. The Marital Standard of Living Matters—But It’s Not Absolute
  • Courts will consider the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, but that does not mean a blank cheque.
  • Adjustments may be made based on available resources and the need for fairness.
  1. Full and Frank Disclosure Is Critical
  • If a party fails to provide clear disclosure, courts may err in favour of the applicant.
  • Hiding assets or claiming financial difficulty without clear evidence can backfire.
  1. Previous Agreements Are Persuasive
  • If parties previously agreed on a maintenance figure, it can be difficult to argue for a major change without strong justification.
  • Courts will consider whether circumstances have actually changed since the last agreement.

Final Thoughts: A Case of Careful Balance

The decision in SM v BA [2025] EWFC 28 reinforces that MPS is a temporary solution, designed to balance the needs of both parties without pre-judging the final financial settlement. The award of £29,750 per month shows that courts take a pragmatic, rather than rigid, approach—ensuring that immediate needs are met without necessarily replicating the exact marital lifestyle.

For family lawyers, this case is a reminder to carefully construct interim applications, ensuring that:

  • Budgets are realistic and well-evidenced.
  • The marital standard of living is factored in—but not overstated.
  • Clients are advised against financial posturing, as courts will scrutinise disclosure carefully.
Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: case law, maintenance pending suit, mps, sm v ba 2025, tl v ml 2006
Featured Image

18 February 2025

Four Houses and a Divorce: The Complexities of Property and Contribution in RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B)

When it comes to dividing assets in a divorce, few things cause as much contention as pre-marital property—especially when there’s more than one house involved. In RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B), the court had to decide whether four properties owned by the husband before the marriage should be shared or whether the wife’s claim should be limited to her financial needs.

The case offers valuable insights into how courts approach long marriages, non-matrimonial assets, and the “matrimonialisation” of property—and serves as a warning that just because a house has been a family home doesn’t necessarily mean it will be shared equally.

The Case: A Marriage and Multiple Homes

RM (the wife) and WP (the husband) had a long marriage, spanning 15 years from 2005 to 2020. At the time of their marriage, the husband already owned four properties, which remained in his sole name:

  • Two apartments in London
  • A country cottage
  • A house in a European country

Over the years, the couple lived in different properties at different times, sometimes together, sometimes separately. When the marriage broke down, the wife argued that since these homes had been used as family residences at different times, they had become matrimonial property, meaning they should be divided equally.

The husband, on the other hand, argued that these properties were his pre-marital assets, had remained in his name throughout, and should not be shared beyond what was necessary to meet the wife’s housing needs.

The Court’s Approach: What Happens When There Are Multiple Homes?

Judge Hess had to decide whether these properties had become matrimonial and, if so, whether they should be divided equally. He outlined key principles:

  1. The Importance of a “Family Home”
    • The general rule is that the matrimonial home, even if pre-owned by one party, is usually considered matrimonial property.
    • However, when a couple has multiple homes, the situation becomes more complex.
  2. Sequential vs. Simultaneous Family Homes
    • The wife argued that all four properties should be treated as matrimonial property because they had been used at different times as the family home.
    • The judge rejected this “once a family home, always a family home” argument. Just because a house had been lived in for a period did not automatically make it a matrimonial asset.
  3. The Husband’s Sole Ownership and Lack of “Mixing”
    • The properties had always remained in the husband’s name.
    • The wife had not contributed financially to the properties.
    • Apart from one refurbishment (paid for with the husband’s business funds), there was no evidence of the couple treating the properties as jointly owned.
  4. Needs vs. Sharing Principle
    • The wife’s claim was assessed on her needs, not equal sharing.
    • The court awarded her £657,000—enough to secure reasonable housing but far less than half of the total property portfolio’s value.

Key Features for Family Lawyers and their Clients

  1. Just Because a House Has Been a Family Home Doesn’t Mean It Will Be Shared
  • The court is willing to depart from the equal sharing principle where assets clearly originated from one party.
  • Multiple homes used at different times do not automatically become matrimonial property.
  1. Pre-Marital Assets Can Retain Their Character
  • If a party keeps an asset solely in their name and does not mix finances, courts are more likely to treat it as non-matrimonial.
  • This case reinforces Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, which held that even the family home can be unequally divided if there are strong pre-marital claims.
  1. Needs-Based Outcomes Still Prevail in Long Marriages
  • Even when assets are non-matrimonial, courts will still ensure the financially weaker party can rehouse.
  • The wife here was awarded enough to buy a £650,000 property, but she did not get a share of all four houses.
  1. If You Want to Protect Pre-Marital Property, Keep It Separate
  • Had the husband added the wife to the title, allowed her to financially contribute, or mingled finances, he might have lost his claim to keep the properties.
  • Clients who want to protect pre-marital wealth should consider pre-nuptial agreements or clear financial separation.

Final Thoughts: Four Homes, One Divorce, and a Lesson in Asset Protection

RM v WP highlights that just because multiple houses were lived in at different times, it does not mean they will all be divided equally. Pre-marital assets remain pre-marital unless there is strong evidence of mixing—and the courts will not hesitate to depart from a 50/50 split where fairness demands it.

For practitioners, the case serves as a useful precedent when advising clients who own multiple properties before marriage. For divorcing parties, the lesson is simple: if you want to claim a share of an asset, you need to show you treated it as joint property, not just that you lived in it.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: 4 houses, case law, matrimonialisation, rm v wp 2024, standish
Featured Image

11 February 2025

Married or Not? Lessons from Z v Z [2025] EWHC 276 (Fam) on Proving a Valid Marriage

What happens when one party claims they are married and the other flatly denies it? The recent case of Z v Z [2025] EWHC 276 (Fam) serves as a striking example of how the courts approach disputes over whether a legally valid marriage exists. With financial remedies at stake, the case underscores the importance of marriage registration, evidential burdens, and the challenges of proving—or disproving—a civil marriage.

The Case: A Marriage in Dispute

Ms. Z claimed that she and Mr. Z had a civil marriage on 14 December 2009 at X Registry Office. She produced a marriage certificate, bearing what appeared to be Mr. Z’s signature, and argued that this document should be conclusive proof of their legal union.

Mr. Z, however, denied that he had ever attended the ceremony, insisting that Ms. Z had tricked the registrar by using an imposter who fraudulently signed his name. He maintained that their only valid marriage was their Islamic Nikah in 1999, which was not recognised under English law.

Why did this dispute matter? Because without a legally recognised civil marriage, Ms. Z could not pursue a financial claim against Mr. Z.

What the Law Says: Proving a Valid Marriage

In England and Wales, a legally valid marriage requires:

  1. Compliance with the formal requirements of the Marriage Act 1949, including proper notice and registration.
  2. A properly conducted ceremony in an approved location, witnessed by two people.
  3. Signatures on the marriage certificate, confirming the marriage took place.

The best evidence of a valid marriage is the official marriage certificate, as emphasised in L-K v K (No. 3) [2006] EWHC 3281 (Fam). This case confirmed that a marriage certificate is strong evidence but not conclusive—if fraud or error is alleged, the court must weigh all the evidence.

In Islam v Islam [2003] EWHC 1298 (Fam), the court found that a marriage certificate alone was not enough when compelling evidence suggested a fraudulent registration.

The Court’s Decision: Did the Marriage Happen?

After hearing extensive evidence, Mr Justice Trowell ruled in favour of Ms. Z, finding that the civil marriage did take place. The court based its decision on:

  • The Marriage Certificate: The judge found no expert evidence to support Mr. Z’s claim that the signature was forged.
  • Registrar’s Safeguards: The judge noted that registrars verify identity using photo ID before marriage ceremonies, making it highly unlikely that an imposter could have fooled officials.
  • Lack of Strong Counter-Evidence: While Mr. Z argued that there were no wedding photos, receipts, or family witnesses, the judge accepted Ms. Z’s explanation that civil marriages were not culturally significant and may not have been celebrated.
  • Mr. Z’s Credibility Issues: The judge highlighted inconsistencies in Mr. Z’s evidence, including a false Islamic divorce document he had created in 2013, and a conviction for perverting the course of justice in 1994.

However, the judge acknowledged "odd features" in Ms. Z’s evidence, including her inability to locate the ceremony’s witnesses and her failure to mention the civil marriage in earlier family proceedings.

Key Takeaways: Proving (or Disproving) a Marriage

  1. A Marriage Certificate Is Strong Evidence, But Not Infallible
    • Courts presume a marriage is valid if a certificate exists, but it can be challenged with compelling evidence.
  2. Fraud Allegations Carry a High Burden of Proof
    • The party alleging fraud (here, Mr. Z) must provide strong evidence—mere suspicion is not enough.
    • Expert handwriting analysis could have helped, but Mr. Z failed to obtain one.
  3. Cultural Norms Matter
    • The court recognised that civil marriages are sometimes viewed as administrative formalities rather than major events, explaining the lack of wedding celebrations or family involvement.
  4. Judicial Scepticism Toward Late Claims
    • The judge noted that Ms. Z only pursued the divorce after years of litigation, raising some doubts.
    • However, he accepted that her focus had been on child arrangements and protection from domestic abuse.
  5. Delays Can Impact Available Evidence
    • Key records, such as Mr. Z’s employment records, had been destroyed, making it harder for him to disprove attendance at the ceremony.

Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Tale

For family lawyers, Z v Z is a reminder that marriage disputes are not always clear-cut. While a marriage certificate is powerful evidence, it is not absolute—but challenging it requires real proof, not just denial.

For couples, the case highlights the importance of proper legal formalities and the risks of informal marriages that lack legal recognition. If you’re entering a religious marriage, consider ensuring it is legally registered, or you could face serious consequences in the event of a breakup.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: case law, valid marriage, void, z v z
Featured Image

7 February 2025

When One Party Won’t Cooperate: Lessons from WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B)

Few things are as frustrating in family law as a party who simply refuses to comply with court orders—particularly when it involves selling the former matrimonial home (FMH). The case of WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B) is a prime example of the legal mechanisms available when one spouse obstructs a court-ordered sale.

This case is also notable for the court’s use of the Thwaite jurisdiction, which allows variations to existing financial remedy orders when circumstances change or a party frustrates their implementation. Below, we explore the key lessons from this case and practical takeaways for family law practitioners.

The Facts: A Sale Stalled by One Party

WZ (the wife) and HZ (the husband) had been locked in financial remedy litigation for years. A final order had been made in 2021, which required the sale of the former matrimonial home to provide the wife with funds to meet her housing needs. The order anticipated that the FMH would be on the market within three months and sold within six months.

However, three years later, the house remained unsold, and the wife continued living there rent-free while the husband paid the mortgage and maintenance. The husband accused the wife of deliberately frustrating the sale by refusing access to estate agents, rejecting reasonable offers, and even removing the ‘For Sale’ sign.

Faced with ongoing delays, mounting legal costs, and financial pressure, the husband returned to court seeking:

  1. An order for possession of the FMH, allowing him to take control of the sale.
  2. A Thwaite variation, arguing that the delay had resulted in a financial windfall for the wife, and the court should adjust the division of proceeds.

The Court’s Approach

  1. Ordering Possession: A Rare but Necessary Step

The court acknowledged that it had tried everything to enforce the sale. Previous orders had given the husband sole conduct of the sale, but the wife’s obstruction had rendered this ineffective.

Citing Derhalli v Derhalli [2021] EWCA Civ 112, the judge confirmed that the court has the power to grant possession under FPR 9.24, which allows the court to enforce orders under Section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This power enables the court to remove an obstructive party from the home to ensure compliance with a sale order.

🔹 Lesson for practitioners: If a party repeatedly frustrates a sale, a possession order may be the only viable enforcement tool. This case shows that the courts are willing to take robust action when necessary.

  1. Thwaite Jurisdiction: Adjusting Orders to Reflect Reality

The Thwaite jurisdiction, derived from Thwaite v Thwaite [1981] 2 FLR 280, allows courts to vary the terms of an executory order (one that has not yet been implemented) to achieve fairness.

In this case, the court found that:

  • The wife had benefited unfairly from delaying the sale, as property prices had risen significantly.
  • The original order assumed a sale in 2021, meaning the husband was now paying much more than intended.
  • The original division of proceeds was no longer fair, given the wife’s obstruction.

The court ruled that the increase in the sale price should not benefit the wife entirely. Instead, a portion of the additional equity would go toward covering the husband’s legal fees and outstanding maintenance obligations.

🔹 Lesson for practitioners: The Thwaite jurisdiction is a powerful tool in financial remedy cases where one party frustrates implementation. It ensures that delays do not unfairly enrich the obstructive party.

Key Takeaways for Family Lawyers

  1. Enforcing Sales: Courts Will Step In
  • If a party refuses to cooperate, courts can grant possession orders to remove them from the property.
  • Even where a party is living in the FMH, they cannot indefinitely obstruct a sale.
  1. Thwaite Variations: A Safety Net for Changing Circumstances
  • Orders that remain executory can be adjusted if circumstances change.
  • Deliberate obstruction can result in a financial penalty, ensuring the obstructive party does not benefit from their own misconduct.
  1. Acting Early to Avoid Costly Litigation
  • This case took three years to return to court, during which time both parties incurred significant legal costs.
  • Had the husband applied earlier for enforcement measures, he may have avoided much of the financial and emotional toll.

Final Thoughts: The Cost of Non-Compliance

WZ v HZ [2024] highlights the perils of failing to comply with financial remedy orders. For parties tempted to frustrate court-ordered sales, the judgment sends a clear warning: the court has the power to act, and it will.

For practitioners, this case reinforces the importance of early intervention. If one party is blocking a sale, don’t wait—seek enforcement, possession orders, or Thwaite adjustments before delays spiral into costly litigation.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: case law, enforcement, fmh, sale of property, thwaite, thwaite jurisdiction
Featured Image

30 January 2025

Chaos in the Courtroom: Lessons from T v T & Ors [2025] EWFC 14 (B)

In the world of family law, procedural rules are more than administrative hurdles—they are the backbone of a fair and efficient judicial process. In the recent case of T v T & Ors [2025] EWFC 14 (B), the disregard for these rules reached such a level that the final hearing had to be adjourned entirely. This judgment provides a stark reminder of the perils for parties and their legal representatives when procedural rules are ignored.

The Case That Couldn’t Proceed

The case concerned financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a marriage. Initially involving the husband and wife as the main parties, three additional respondents (the husband’s mother, sister, and the executor of his late father’s estate) were later joined due to the wife’s claims over family-owned properties. The case had already spanned nearly two years and included seven directions hearings.

However, when the matter came before the court for a three-day final hearing, it was quickly apparent that the case was not ready to proceed due to a series of procedural failings:

  1. Excessive Bundles: The applicant’s legal team submitted over 2,700 pages of documents, despite clear rules limiting bundles to 350 pages unless permission is granted.
  2. Missing Essential Documents: The bundles lacked a case summary, chronology, and statement of issues, making it impossible for the judge to prepare adequately.
  3. Late Filing: Key documents, including counsel’s position statement, were submitted the night before or on the morning of the hearing, giving the litigants in person no time to respond.
  4. No Open Proposals: The wife’s legal team failed to provide open proposals, a critical requirement in financial remedy cases.
  5. Legal Case Unclear: The wife’s claims over family properties lacked clarity, leaving the court uncertain about the legal basis of her arguments.

Key Lessons for Practitioners

This case offers valuable insights for family lawyers:

  1. Bundles Must Follow the Rules
    • FPR PD 27A limits bundles to 350 pages without prior permission. Here, the applicant’s 2,747-page bundle was a clear breach of this rule. Lawyers must ensure bundles are concise, relevant, and submitted on time.
    • The court cannot and will not sift through excessive paperwork to salvage a poorly prepared case.
  2. Timely Filing Is Critical
  3. Clarify Legal Arguments
    • The wife’s legal arguments, based on constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, were poorly articulated. The court emphasised the need for clear and concise statements of case, as required by the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings.
    • Practitioners must clearly identify the legal framework supporting their client’s claims and provide sufficient evidence to back them up.
  4. Don’t Assume the Court Will Fix It
    • Judges may work to untangle poorly prepared cases, but as this judgment shows, there are limits. Recorder Chandler KC noted that this case was so chaotic that proceeding would have been unfair. Lawyers must respect the court’s time and resources by preparing cases to a high standard.
  5. The Risk of Costs Sanctions
    • Although no costs order was made due to the parties’ circumstances, the judge indicated that, in other cases, such breaches could result in indemnity costs orders against the offending party or their representatives.

The Bigger Picture: Procedural Discipline in Family Law

This case is not just about one chaotic hearing—it reflects a broader issue in family law practice. As Sir James Munby P observed in Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177, a “slapdash, lackadaisical” approach to court orders and procedures cannot be tolerated. Similarly, Mostyn J in Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 decried the “utter disregard” for procedural rules that too often characterises family law cases.

The consequences are significant:

  • For parties, procedural failures delay justice, increase costs, and add emotional strain.
  • For courts, such failings waste valuable judicial time and resources, compounding delays across an already overstretched system.

Final Thoughts: A Warning for the Future

The decision in T v T & Ors is a wake-up call for family law practitioners. Procedural rules are not optional, and failing to follow them can have dire consequences, including adjourned hearings, wasted costs, and damage to professional reputations.

For lawyers, the lesson is clear: attention to detail, compliance with rules, and respect for the court’s time are non-negotiable. For clients, it’s a reminder to choose legal representatives who will handle their case with the care and professionalism it deserves.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: adjournment, bundles, case law, fpr, fpr pd27a, procedural discipline
Featured Image

28 January 2025

Parental Responsibility: Mistakes and Missteps and the Impact of KL v BA [2025]

The recent High Court case of KL v BA [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam) examines the acquisition of parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989 and the consequences of errors in birth registration. This judgment, which determined that a father mistakenly named on a birth certificate did not acquire parental responsibility, highlights the complexities of family law and the practical challenges of navigating parental rights.

The Facts of the Case

This case concerned a child, MA, born in 2020 to her mother, BA. Shortly after her birth, BA registered MA’s birth with KL, naming him as the child’s father. However, after the breakdown of their relationship, BA revealed in 2022 that KL was not MA’s biological father. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed this.

Despite this revelation, KL wished to continue his parental role in MA’s life. He applied for a parental responsibility order to secure his rights in the event that BA sought to remove them. Meanwhile, BA sought a declaration of non-parentage, arguing that KL’s parental responsibility should be void from the outset.

The key issue before the court was whether KL had acquired parental responsibility by being named on the birth certificate, and if so, whether that responsibility could be voided once his non-paternity was established.

What Is Parental Responsibility?

Under Section 3 of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility is defined as the rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities that a parent has concerning a child. It includes decisions about education, medical treatment, and religious upbringing.

For fathers not married to the child’s mother, Section 4 of the Act outlines three routes to acquiring parental responsibility:

  1. Being named on the birth certificate (after December 1, 2003).
  2. Entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the mother.
  3. Obtaining a court order granting parental responsibility.

The Judgment: No Parental Responsibility Acquired

The High Court ruled that KL did not acquire parental responsibility because he was not MA’s biological father. The court emphasised that the biological link is the foundation for acquiring parental responsibility under Section 4(1)(a). A man mistakenly named on a birth certificate does not meet this criterion and cannot gain parental responsibility through registration alone.

This conclusion overturned KL’s claim and clarified that his putative parental responsibility was void ab initio (from the outset) once non-paternity was proven.

Practical Guidance: How to Acquire Parental Responsibility

For fathers seeking to acquire parental responsibility in England, the following options are available:

  1. Be Named on the Birth Certificate
    Fathers who attend the birth registration with the mother and are named on the birth certificate automatically gain parental responsibility, provided they are the biological father.
  2. Parental Responsibility Agreement
    Fathers can enter into a written agreement with the mother, signed and witnessed, to formalise their parental responsibility. This is useful when the father’s name is not on the birth certificate but both parents agree on his involvement.
  3. Court Order
    If agreement cannot be reached, a father can apply to the court for a parental responsibility order. Courts assess the father’s commitment, relationship with the child, and reasons for applying.

Lessons from KL v BA for Family Law Practitioners

  1. The Importance of Biological Links
    This case reinforces that biological paternity is central to parental responsibility acquired through birth registration. Practitioners must verify paternity if disputes arise to avoid reliance on incorrect registrations.
  2. Legal Challenges of Void Responsibility
    The court’s decision that KL’s parental responsibility was void ab initio prevents uncertainty about prior decisions made in good faith by someone acting without true legal authority. Lawyers should advise clients on the limitations of non-biological parental rights.
  3. The Role of Welfare Analysis
    Although KL’s case did not require a welfare analysis due to the voiding of his parental responsibility, courts must undertake such assessments when removing parental responsibility from biological fathers. Welfare remains the paramount consideration under the Children Act.
  4. Errors in Birth Registration
    Mistakes or misrepresentations during birth registration can lead to significant legal consequences. Practitioners should ensure clients understand the implications of being named on a birth certificate.

Reflections: Balancing Biology and Bond

The case of KL v BA underscores the careful balance courts must strike between the biological foundations of parental responsibility and the emotional bonds between children and non-biological parents. While KL’s dedication to MA was evident, the law prioritised the clarity and intent of the statutory framework.

For parents, the lesson is clear: birth registration is not merely a formality. For lawyers, this case serves as a reminder to approach disputes involving parental responsibility with meticulous attention to legal principles and family dynamics.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: birth certificate, case law, parental responsibility
Featured Image

27 January 2025

Unmasking the MacQueens: When Transparency Is More Than Just a Legal Duty

The recent case of MacQueen v MacQueen [2024] EWFC 400 (B) stands out in family law not just for the egregious dishonesty displayed by the husband but also for the court’s decision to publish the judgment without anonymisation. This highly unusual step sends a clear message about the importance of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and the consequences of defying court orders.

Here, we explore the key points from this case and its lessons for practitioners, particularly on the question of anonymising judgments.

The Facts: A Masterclass in Brazen Non-Disclosure

The case involved financial remedy proceedings following the divorce of Mr. and Mrs. MacQueen. The court was tasked with determining the financial arrangements on divorce. What should have been a straightforward process was derailed by the husband’s persistent dishonesty:

  • He failed to provide accurate financial disclosure, omitting substantial income streams from various business ventures (including luxury bulldog sales and roofing contracts).
  • He flagrantly ignored court orders to produce documents, including his Form E, P60s, and WhatsApp messages.
  • When questioned, his explanations shifted constantly, leaving the court to draw adverse inferences about his finances.

The Judgment: Transparency vs. Anonymity

In a rare move, District Judge Ashby determined that the judgment should be published without anonymising the husband’s identity. While the children’s anonymity was preserved, the husband’s behaviour warranted public scrutiny.

The court’s reasoning was clear:

  • Flagrant Non-Compliance: The husband’s “brazen dishonesty” undermined the court process and warranted accountability.
  • Public Interest: Highlighting such behaviour serves as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar tactics in financial remedy proceedings.

The court relied on the principle established in R v C (Publication of Judgment) [2015] EWCA Civ 500, which allows judgments to be published when public interest outweighs privacy concerns.

Practical Lessons for Family Lawyers

  1. The Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Is Paramount
    • The court described disclosure as the “bedrock” of financial remedy proceedings. Practitioners must emphasise this obligation to clients early and often.
  2. Prepare Clients for Consequences of Non-Compliance
    • This case demonstrates that dishonesty and evasion can lead not just to adverse inferences but also to significant reputational damage through public judgments.
  3. Evidence Is Key
    • The wife’s evidence—including bank statements, payments, and even social media—was crucial in exposing the husband’s true financial position. Lawyers should ensure clients gather and preserve all relevant documentation.
  4. Anonymity Is Not Guaranteed
    • Clients often assume financial remedy cases will remain private. However, as this case shows, poor conduct can lead to public exposure. This is an important discussion to have with clients, especially when dishonesty may be an issue.
  5. Costs Orders Are a Risk
    • The court ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs on an indemnity basis, a rare but justified decision given his behaviour. For practitioners, this is a reminder to encourage settlement where possible to avoid unnecessary escalation.

Final Thoughts: Transparency as a Deterrent

MacQueen v MacQueen is a stark reminder that the courts take a dim view of dishonesty and non-compliance. It also demonstrates the increasing willingness of judges to use publication as a tool to hold parties accountable.

For practitioners, the message is clear: ensure your clients understand their obligations, prepare thoroughly, and be ready to address dishonesty head-on. For clients, the lesson is even simpler: tell the truth, comply with court orders, and avoid turning your divorce into a public spectacle.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: anonymisation, case law, macqueen, publication

24 January 2025

Valuing Love: Lessons from AF v GF [2024] on Non-Matrimonial Assets and Pensions

The case of AF v GF [2024] EWHC 3478 (Fam) offers family law practitioners a masterclass in tackling complex financial remedy disputes involving high-value business assets, pensions, and the nuanced distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Beyond the substantial legal fees and extensive litigation, this case highlights key principles and practical tips for practitioners navigating similar scenarios.

The Story Behind the Numbers

This case concerned a long marriage between AF (the wife) and GF (the husband), marked by significant financial complexities. At the heart of the dispute were:

  • The valuation and classification of GF's business interests in the investment management sector.
  • Arguments over the extent to which non-matrimonial assets had been "matrimonialised" through the wife’s involvement in growing the business.
  • The drastic decline in asset values during the litigation, leading to competing expert valuations.

The total asset pool, initially estimated at £10–13 million, was later revised to a mere £2.779 million, a drop that complicated the fairness assessment.

Key Issues and Legal Principles

  1. Matrimonial vs. Non-Matrimonial Assets
    The court grappled with whether GF's pre-marital business interests (founded in 2007) had been transformed into matrimonial property through AF’s contributions as Managing Director.

    • The court relied on Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, which emphasised that matrimonialisation should be applied narrowly and fairness should guide whether non-marital assets are brought into the sharing principle.
    • The judgment reinforced that not all contributions transform non-marital property into matrimonial property; the distinction depends on usage, mixing, and intent.
  2. Fragility of Business Valuations
    The collapse in the value of GF’s business interests highlighted the volatility of private company valuations. Echoing Versteegh v Versteegh [2018], the judgment noted that such valuations are inherently fragile due to market conditions, lack of liquidity, and reliance on hypothetical projections.
  3. Addbacks and Conduct
    Both parties sought to add back amounts they alleged the other had wasted.

    • The court declined to add back GF’s substantial loss from the purchase of a yacht, as it was deemed a business decision rather than wanton dissipation.
    • Similarly, AF’s maintenance expenditure was not penalised despite GF’s claims of unnecessary spending.

Practical Tips for Practitioners

  1. Be Proactive About Valuations
    • Always scrutinise business valuations early in the proceedings and ensure clients understand their inherent volatility.
    • Encourage clients to provide clear and complete financial disclosure to minimise disputes.
  2. Understand the Limits of Matrimonialisation
    • Advise clients that contributions to a business may not necessarily convert non-marital assets into marital property.
    • Where clients seek to argue matrimonialisation, gather evidence showing active involvement and the integration of assets into the marital framework.
  3. Manage Client Expectations
    • Cases involving non-marital assets often lead to unpredictable outcomes. Set realistic expectations early, especially when valuations fluctuate.
    • Highlight the cost-benefit analysis of litigation; in this case, legal fees of £1.6 million significantly eroded the available asset pool.
  4. Addbacks Require High Thresholds
    • Emphasise that claims for addbacks (or reattributions) require proof of wanton dissipation of assets. Frivolous spending or unwise investments typically do not meet this standard.
  5. Clean Breaks vs. Wells Orders
    • This case underscores the practical challenges of devising clean break settlements where assets include volatile business interests. Wells orders, which defer payments until realisations occur, may provide a pragmatic alternative.

Reflections: Navigating the Storm

AF v GF serves as a cautionary tale about the emotional and financial toll of protracted litigation. For practitioners, the key takeaways are the importance of robust evidence, early resolution efforts, and managing the inherent unpredictability of asset valuations.

Ultimately, this case reaffirms the court’s commitment to fairness, even in the most complex financial landscapes. It also highlights that when love turns to litigation, the best outcomes often stem from thorough preparation and a pragmatic approach.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: business, business assets, case law, matrimonialisation, non matrimonial assets, standish, versteegh, wells
Newer PostsOlder Posts ›
york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color
york-skyline-color

Get in touch for your free consultation

Contact Us
James-Thornton-Family-Law_white

Where innovation meets excellence

Our mission is clear: to redefine the standards of legal representation by seamlessly integrating unparalleled expertise with cutting-edge innovation.

01904 373 111
info@jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk

York Office

Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU

Appointment only

James Thornton Family Law Limited (trading as James Thornton Family Law) is a Company, registered in England and Wales, with Company Number 15610140. Our Registered Office is Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane, York, YO1 8SU. Director: James Thornton. We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA number 8007901, and subject to the SRA Standards and Regulations which can be accessed at www.sra.org.uk

Privacy Notice  |  Complaints  |  Terms of Business

Facebook
X (Twitter)
Instagram

©2024 James Thornton Family Law Limited