The case of G v N [2025] EWFC 286 (B) is a striking reminder of how the family courts approach the matrimonial home when it is the sole remaining asset – and how long periods of separation, combined with non-engagement, can heavily influence the outcome.
The Facts
The husband and wife had divorced many years earlier, but no financial order had ever been made. Nearly thirty years ago, the wife walked out of the former matrimonial home (FMH), leaving the husband to raise their two children and meet all the financial obligations alone.
At the time she left, the house was almost entirely mortgaged – the equity was around 10%. Over the ensuing decades, the husband paid off the mortgage, maintained the property, and supported the children without any contribution from the wife. She made no child maintenance payments, offered no financial assistance, and had no involvement in the children’s lives.
Fast forward to 2025, the husband sought a financial remedies order to transfer the FMH into his sole name, arguing that it was inequitable for the wife to retain any interest given her long absence and lack of contribution.
The Wife’s Silence
The wife was served with all the necessary documents, but she neither filed evidence nor attended the final hearing. Her only recorded contact was a last-minute phone call to say she would not attend due to ill health. She made no application to adjourn. As a result, the husband’s evidence went entirely unchallenged.
The Court’s Approach
District Judge Shackleton considered the familiar section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors, but noted that many were of little relevance given the unusual facts. With no dependent children and no competing financial claims, the focus was on fairness in the distribution of the only asset.
Key points:
- The wife had abandoned the home and family nearly 30 years earlier.
- The husband had paid 90% of the mortgage and all household outgoings since.
- There was no evidence of any ongoing needs or contributions by the wife.
- Conduct was not pleaded, but the court could not ignore the practical effect of the wife’s choices: the husband had borne the full financial and parental burden.
The judge concluded the wife had “no claim whatsoever” to the property. The FMH was ordered to be transferred into the husband’s sole name, with the court itself authorised to sign the TR1 transfer if the wife refused. Importantly, a clean break was imposed, ensuring finality.
Key Lessons for Practitioners
- The matrimonial home is not sacrosanct – in the right circumstances, one party may be awarded the entire property, especially after long separation and sole financial responsibility.
- Non-engagement is risky – silence from the wife meant her position went unheard, and the husband’s evidence was accepted unchallenged.
- Time matters – three decades of unilateral responsibility weighed heavily in the husband’s favour.
- Clean breaks remain a priority – courts will seize the opportunity to conclude financial ties, particularly in older cases with no dependent children.
Conclusion
G v N is unusual but illustrative. While courts often strive for fairness through division of the matrimonial home, here the facts left little room for sharing. For practitioners, it underlines the importance of advising clients that absence and non-engagement may lead to the extinguishing of claims – and that finality is always the court’s goal.
