Robson v Robson

In financial relief after a long marriage, inherited wealth is a relevant but not determinative factor. The court must apply the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25, giving each relevant circumstance its proper weight. The source, nature, duration, use, preservation and depletion of inherited assets may justify departure from equality.

Where parties have used inherited capital to support a lifestyle beyond affordable income, that history may justify reducing future provision to a sustainable level. A clean break remains encouraged by section 25A where it is fair, including where the payer’s unreliability makes continuing periodical payments likely to generate litigation. On appeal, material evidence arising before the order may be admitted where it affects the fairness of the award.

After a long marriage, Charles J made ancillary relief orders requiring the husband to pay the wife £8 million, including £5 million for housing and £3 million for income needs. He also ordered the sale of the Oxfordshire estate, interim and periodical payments, and a clean break.

The husband appealed, challenging the assessment of housing and income needs, the use of the marital standard of living, the clean break, the timing of payment and interest, and the judge’s treatment of his conduct. Both parties sought to adduce fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the award properly reflected the parties’ inherited wealth and lifestyle, and whether the appellate court should revise the order in light of later evidence.

Disposition. Ward LJ gave the leading judgment. Hughes LJ agreed and added observations on inherited capital and fresh evidence. Patten LJ agreed with both judgments. The appeal was allowed in part and the lump-sum award and payment provisions were varied.

1. Statutory approach. The court must apply section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and give proper weight to all relevant circumstances and the matters in section 25(2). Those matters have no fixed hierarchy. Need, compensation and sharing inform the search for fairness, but no formula or percentage determines the result.
2. Inherited wealth and needs. The source and nature of inherited assets are relevant. Their duration of enjoyment, use, preservation, enhancement and depletion must also be considered. Here the parties had jointly used inherited capital to fund an extravagant lifestyle beyond what their income and efforts could responsibly support. It was therefore inconsistent to criticise that conduct while maintaining the wife indefinitely at the same level of expenditure. Her ordinary living allowance was reduced by 10 per cent, while the allowance for her equestrian activities was retained.
3. Housing provision. The judge had failed to consider material information that the wife’s housing need could apparently be met for about £4 million. His £5 million award was consequently excessive. The Court of Appeal assessed the housing expenditure actually incurred at approximately £4.3 million and treated it as meeting her housing need.
4. Clean break. Section 25A continues to encourage termination of financial obligations where that is just and reasonable. The principle does not require an unfair result, but the mere possibility of remarriage does not prevent a clean break. The husband had provided no viable security or financial plan, and his unreliability made further litigation likely. A clean break was therefore upheld.
5. Fresh evidence and payment. Under rule 52.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, an appeal is ordinarily a review rather than a rehearing. The principles in Ladd v Marshall remained applicable. Evidence concerning the estate sales and the wife’s actual home was admitted because it materially affected the result. A lump sum payable from sale proceeds should ordinarily be linked to completion and receipt of those proceeds. Interest could run only from the date the order became effective after decree absolute, and interim periodical payments were left in place.
6. Final award. The wife was awarded approximately £7 million in total, including housing, costs and capitalised future income needs. The lump sum was to be paid from the sale proceeds, with the balance payable on completion of the sale of the Hall and interest payable if sums were not paid when due.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — allowed the appeal in part, reducing the overall lump-sum award to approximately £7 million, varying the payment and interest provisions, and upholding the clean break.
2. Family Division, Mr Justice Charles — ordered payment of an £8 million lump sum, sale of specified properties, interim and periodical payments, and a clean break following a long marriage.