In GR v AR [2025] EWFC 143 (B), His Honour Judge Edward Hess handed down a comprehensive judgment that serves as a reminder: the sharing principle may start at 50:50, but it doesn’t always end there—especially when one spouse brought significantly more wealth to the marriage.
This case is a textbook example of non-matrimonial property, the nuance of contributions, and the real-world difficulty of assigning mathematical fairness in long marriages where wealth is complex and pre-acquired.
Case Summary
- Marriage length: Just over 9 years (including long cohabitation).
- Parties: A high-earning wife with substantial pre-marital wealth, and a husband who stepped away from work to focus on parenting after a successful business career.
- Total asset base: Over £41 million, largely held by the wife (£36m).
- Outcome: Husband awarded a lump sum of £11 million, or 39% of the total liquid assets.
Key Issues and Judicial Reasoning
- Matrimonial vs Non-Matrimonial Property
The core of the dispute was how much of the wife’s wealth should be shared. She had accumulated significant wealth before marriage, mostly via shares in a major investment company. The judge rejected strict mathematical models offered by each side and instead followed Hart v Hart [2017] and Miller/McFarlane [2006], applying a broad evaluative approach. Ultimately, approximately two-thirds of her Swiss bank holdings and investments were deemed matrimonial acquest.
- The Family Home Counts—Even in Sole Names
The wife bought the home in her sole name, but Judge Hess followed well-established principles (Miller, Standish v Standish [2024]) that the family home—even if pre-owned—generally counts as matrimonial property. The husband was awarded 50% of the equity, adding over £1 million to his award.
- The "Sharp" Argument Rejected
The wife’s legal team leaned on Sharp v Sharp [2017] to argue that their separate finances during the marriage (splitting bills down the middle, etc.) should reduce any claim by the husband. But the judge declined to apply Sharp-style logic to a long marriage with a child, instead preferring the broader fairness lens of XW v XH [2020].
- Add-Backs and Alleged Spending
The husband sought “add-backs” for post-separation spending, including a watch and a gift from the wife to her mother. The court declined, emphasising that these were not so exceptional as to warrant financial penalty, and mirrored the husband’s own discretionary spending.
- Career Choices and Earning Capacity
The husband had declined work offers post-separation, citing a desire to focus on co-parenting. The wife suspected strategic unemployment. The court struck a balanced tone, noting his continued high earning capacity—but not penalising him for past choices. This aligns with the non-discriminatory approach of White v White [2000].
Practical Points for Practitioners
- Tracing the marital element in complex investments requires realism: Judges are increasingly wary of "spreadsheet wars" that mask rather than reveal fairness.
- Family homes remain special—even if owned in one name.
- Pre-marital wealth still matters, but courts don’t always leave it untouched if it’s been mixed, grown, or relied on.
- Keeping finances separate during marriage doesn't always carry the weight separating parties hope for—context is king.
- Reasonable needs are not the only measure in HNW cases; sharing and fairness remain central.
Conclusion
GR v AR is a reminder that even in cases involving immense wealth, the court still wrestles with human judgment, not just arithmetic. The wife, whose fortune dwarfed the husband’s, retained the lion’s share—but not all of it. A clean break was achieved with a substantial lump sum that reflected the marriage's shared economic life, without punishing pre-marital success.
The result? Not 50/50, but fair—and that, ultimately, is the goal.
