M v M

In a short, childless and wealthy marriage, a financial award should be determined by the statutory fairness exercise, having regard to all the circumstances. The court should avoid rigidly treating pre-marital assets, post-marital accretions or matrimonial acquest as automatically included or excluded from an equality calculation. A needs-based or rehabilitative approach may remain appropriate in an extreme case, but it is not a universal rule. Duration remains significant, although the court may consider the circumstances in which the marriage ended when assessing fairness. The award should recognise a spouse’s legitimate expectation of a materially improved standard of living, while avoiding discrimination between financial and non-financial contributions. Where assets are incapable of sensible valuation, a discretionary assessment may produce a fairer result than an artificial equality exercise based on speculative expert valuations.

The applicant wife sought ancillary relief following a childless marriage lasting approximately two and three-quarter years. The parties had been in a relationship for several years before marriage, but had not cohabited continuously before marrying. The husband’s wealth included highly uncertain and potentially valuable shares in a fund-management company. The wife sought the transfer of the former matrimonial home, the French property and a lump sum producing an overall award of approximately £7.2 million. The husband offered £1.3 million while retaining the French property.

The central issues were the relevance of the pre-marital relationship, the short duration of the marriage, the circumstances of its breakdown, the treatment of pre-marital assets and accretions, and the effect of uncertain share valuations in applying section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

1. The court rejected both a restrictive rehabilitative approach and the wife’s proposed automatic calculation of matrimonial acquest. Earlier authorities supporting restoration of the wife’s pre-marital position may remain relevant in relatively extreme cases, but they do not establish a general rule for short marriages.

2. The statutory exercise under section 25 requires an overall assessment of fairness. There is no rigid rule that pre-marital assets, or increases in their value, must be excluded. Their treatment depends on the circumstances, including the parties’ needs, resources, contributions, the duration and context of the relationship, and the extent to which the assets are required to meet needs.

3. The absence of pre-marital cohabitation is not determinative. The relationship before engagement was close but tentative, and the parties’ finances, property and family life were not substantially mingled before marriage. The marriage was therefore treated as relatively short. Its duration was significant, but the court could also consider that the wife had not capriciously ended the marriage and that the husband’s new relationship contributed to its breakdown.

4. The parties’ non-financial contributions were treated as equivalent in principle to financial contributions. The wife’s earning capacity was relevant, but the award should not merely restore her to her former position. The marriage created a legitimate expectation that she would continue to live at a significantly higher economic level.

5. The husband’s shares were not sensibly or reliably valu capable at the hearing date. The court therefore declined to base the award on a precise equality calculation dependent on competing speculative valuations. The former matrimonial home was transferred to the wife free of mortgage, and the husband was ordered to pay a further lump sum of £2.7 million, producing a global award equivalent to approximately £5 million, together with agreed furniture and chattels.

First-instance decision in the High Court (Family Division). The judgment does not state any appeal or prior reported decision in the same proceedings.