Behzadi v Behzadi

In ancillary-relief proceedings, the court should identify the parties’ total net assets and assess proposed capital adjustments against both needs and the sharing principle. Inherited or other non-matrimonial property may justify departure from equality. The court should also consider whether the payer can realistically raise and deploy substantial sums, including from assets situated abroad. An additional payment intended to anticipate a possible foreign liability may be wrong in principle if it adds to an otherwise balanced disposal or duplicates the liability.

The wife renewed an application for permission to appeal orders for ancillary relief made by Hedley J in the High Court, Family Division, on 30 November 2007. The parties had Iranian assets, including properties transferred by the wife to their adult children, and an Iranian judgment recognising a debt owed by the husband to the wife.

The wife abandoned or failed to establish her original grounds concerning the Iranian debt, property valuations, Iranian law and ownership of two properties. The Court of Appeal identified a further arguable issue: whether the award to the husband was excessive, properly assessed under needs and sharing, and realistically capable of being funded by the wife.

1. Permission and disposition. Permission to appeal was refused on the original grounds. Permission was granted on an amended ground concerning the level and practicability of the financial award.
2. The court stated that English law governed the ancillary-relief exercise for parties long resident in England. Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, all the parties’ property had to be taken into account. The sharing principle applied to all property, although inherited or other non-matrimonial property could provide stronger reasons for departing from equality: Charman v Charman No 4 [2007] 1 FLR 1246 at [66].
3. The award was arguably excessive because it may have given the husband more than his needs and reasonable entitlement under sharing, particularly in view of the wife’s inherited wealth. The judge had not calculated the total net assets by reference to the adopted assets and liabilities, or the effect of the proposed transfers and payments on each party.
4. It was also arguable that the judge had failed to consider the wife’s practical ability to raise and deploy the required cash. That issue could include the sale of property in Tehran, disposal and transfer costs, and the remittance of proceeds to England.
5. The apparent requirement that the wife pay an additional £50,000 in England so that the husband would have funds if later required to pay the Iranian debt was arguably wrong in principle. A judge should not, after reaching a balanced disposal, impose an additional burden without proper justification merely to anticipate a possible foreign liability.
6. The wife was permitted to amend her grounds in accordance with the court’s draft. The suggested fresh valuation evidence was excluded from the appeal bundle. Any further complaint about the Iranian debt required consideration of the transcript of the post-judgment exchanges and any supplementary judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds in the Appellant’s Notice, but granted on an amended ground concerning the alleged excessiveness and practicability of the ancillary-relief award.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Hedley J made ancillary-relief orders on 30 November 2007, including property transfers, a lump sum and a contribution to costs.