H v H

In ancillary relief proceedings, an objectively fair division of matrimonial assets already implemented should not be reopened merely because later events alter the parties’ relative wealth. A further award may be made where assets were omitted from that division, including capital assets deployed in a business and profits accruing from the husband’s continued use of the wife’s undivided share. Future earnings are income, not a capital asset susceptible to the sharing principle, although they remain a factor under section 25. Exceptional wealth and business success do not by themselves establish special contribution. Where future business profitability is highly speculative, the court may adopt a cautious broad assessment rather than attempt false mathematical precision.

The wife’s ancillary relief claim followed a twenty-year marriage during which the husband, with business partners, generated substantial wealth through automated quantitative long-short equity trading. The parties separated in March 2007 and divorced in June 2008. In March 2008 the husband unilaterally transferred substantial assets to the wife. The central issues were whether that division was objectively fair, whether it should be reopened, and whether the wife was entitled to share in the business, its later accumulated surplus cash, its capital assets, or the husband’s future earnings. The court also considered allegations of litigation misconduct, tax consequences, business valuation and child maintenance.

1. March 2008 division. The division implemented in March 2008 was objectively fair and in substance an equal division of the matrimonial assets then existing. There was no principled basis for reopening it merely because subsequent changes in asset values had operated to the husband’s advantage. Full justice could be achieved by a further lump sum addressing assets omitted from the division.
2. Business interests. The husband’s future income was not a capital asset, whether described as goodwill or otherwise. It was therefore not susceptible to the sharing principle, although it had to be taken into account as a factor under section 25. By contrast, capital assets deployed in the business were properly brought into account. The wife was also entitled to share in an appropriate part of the additional surplus cash accumulated after March 2008 because the husband had continued to use assets in which she retained an undivided share.
3. Special contribution. The size of the wealth generated did not itself justify departure from equality. The business was a collegiate enterprise, the husband was one of several partners, and its success depended materially on employees, computer systems and trading strategies. The evidence did not establish the exceptional circumstances required for special contribution.
4. Valuation. The evidence did not provide a safe basis for meaningful prediction of future profitability. The business was not cyclical in the ordinary economic sense; it had to reinvent itself by developing new strategies. The court therefore treated the business valuation as highly uncertain and preferred a prudently cautious broad assessment, accepting that the husband’s share was likely to be much closer to the lower expert figures than to the wife’s valuation.
5. Additional award and maintenance. A lump sum of £7.5 million was awarded to the wife. Child maintenance was set at £50,000 per child, with the husband continuing to meet specified educational and related expenses.