How should the Family Court divide extremely high-value assets where one spouse’s wealth is tied up in high-risk, illiquid ventures, and the other needs long-term financial stability?
In BY v GC (No. 2) [2025] EWFC 397, Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, tackled exactly this problem — ultimately valuing the asset base at £89.5 million and departing from equality to award the husband 55%.
The reasons why make this a compelling judgment, and an important one for family law practitioners.
A Case Built on Risky Wealth and Unreliable Disclosure
The husband’s financial world consisted of:
- high-risk investments,
- significant debt exposure,
- uncertain company valuations, and
- assets whose value fluctuated dramatically.
Much of his claimed wealth was bound up in ventures described as speculative or volatile, with no guaranteed return and no easy route to liquidity.
The wife’s financial circumstances could not have been more different. She needed:
- stable capital,
- reliable income,
- and long-term security for herself and the children.
The mismatch between risk appetite (his) and financial vulnerability (hers) shaped the outcome.
Finding the Real Number: £89.5 Million
A central feature of the judgment is the computation of the husband’s wealth, which Nicholas Allen KC found was not presented transparently.
The court identified:
- gaps in disclosure,
- inconsistencies, and
- a financial narrative that was not fully credible.
Where evidence was unreliable or missing, the judge drew adverse inferences and adopted the valuations that best reflected the documentary record and expert analysis.
The final finding — £89.5 million net assets — was higher than the husband contended, and it formed the basis for the sharing exercise.
Why 55/45 Was Fair: The Modern Risk-Weighted Approach
The starting point in a long marriage would ordinarily be a 50/50 split.
But this was not a straightforward “pots of cash” case.
Nicholas Allen KC accepted that:
- The husband had accumulated his wealth by taking significant financial risks.
- Those risks still attached to many of the assets he would retain.
- The wife should not be forced into an unstable investment landscape she had never participated in.
The judge therefore applied a risk-weighted distribution:
Husband – 55% (but almost entirely in high-risk, illiquid assets)
Wife – 45% (in more secure, accessible funds)
This approach reflects an increasingly recognised principle:
a numerical percentage is only meaningful if you also examine the risk profile of the assets each spouse receives.
A strict 50/50 split would have been numerically equal but functionally unfair, because it would expose the wife to volatility she could not withstand.
The Wife’s Needs Remained Central
Even at nearly £90 million, this was not a pure sharing case.
Nicholas Allen KC still anchored the award in the wife’s reasonable needs:
- secure housing,
- reliable income,
- financial stability for the children,
- and protection from the husband’s investment volatility.
The judgment confirms that needs remain a vital cross-check, even in “big money” cases.
The wife required certainty, not a seat on a financial rollercoaster.
Credibility Still Matters — Even at £89 Million
A major influence on the computation exercise was the court’s view of the husband’s credibility.
Where figures lacked clarity or explanation, the judge preferred:
- expert valuation,
- contemporaneous documents, and
- logical inference.
The message is clear: even in the wealthiest cases, the court’s patience for incomplete disclosure is short.
Why BY v GC (No. 2) Matters
This judgment is important because it illustrates:
- Modern risk-adjusted sharing
Courts will depart from equality to prevent the financially weaker spouse inheriting speculative or unstable assets.
- Disclosure remains paramount
Where a party’s financial picture is unreliable, the court is willing to reconstruct it.
- Needs still matter — even in “big money” cases
Stability for the economically weaker spouse is a core objective.
- Asset composition matters as much as the headline figure
£10 million in a risky venture is not the same as £10 million in cash or secure investments.
Ultimately, BY v GC (No. 2) shows the Family Court at its most pragmatic: willing to depart from equality, willing to draw firm inferences where disclosure falls short, and willing to prioritise stability over abstract arithmetic. In an era where wealth is increasingly tied to complex and risky investment structures, the case is a reminder that fairness is not just about the size of the pot, but about the real-world security each party walks away with.
