B v B

Equal sharing of wealth at the date of trial is not automatic after marital separation. The court must determine the fair overall outcome by applying the sharing principle alongside needs, contributions and other relevant circumstances. Although sharing generally ends when the marital partnership ends, the principle applies to all the parties’ resources, not only property acquired during the marriage. Substantial wealth generated by one party’s post-separation endeavours may justify a departure from equality. Where future deferred remuneration is uncertain, the court may award a percentage of sums actually received to preserve fairness. The assessment remains fact-specific and should not be reduced to a formula.

The wife applied for ancillary relief following the parties’ separation in July 2007 after a marriage begun in 1996. The parties had three children. The principal dispute concerned the extent to which the wife should share wealth generated from the husband’s post-separation bonuses and deferred remuneration.

The wife sought approximately £9 million, broadly representing half of the parties’ resources, including bonuses earned up to 2009. The husband proposed a lower award, together with arrangements for school fees and provision for the youngest child. The central issues were the proper application of sharing, needs and contributions, and the treatment of uncertain future bonus payments.

1. School fees and child provision. The court declined to deduct a separate school-fees fund or property fund for the youngest child. The parties had sufficient resources, and suitable provision could be made from those resources. The husband was ordered to continue paying school fees, subject to the parties’ actual financial positions.
2. Sharing and post-separation wealth. The wife was not entitled, as a matter of policy, to half of all wealth existing at trial. Substantial wealth had accrued directly from the husband’s endeavours after separation. That fact justified departing from equality. The court accepted that, generally, absent needs or compensation, sharing ends with the marital partnership. However, the sharing principle extends beyond matrimonial property to all the parties’ resources, and the decisive question is the fair overall outcome in the particular case.
3. Needs and award. The currently available resources, together with sums likely to be received in 2010, were assessed at approximately £15 million. The wife’s resources were assessed at £7 million, meeting her capital and income needs and providing a fair share.
4. Deferred remuneration. Because future deferred instalments were uncertain, the wife was awarded a further sum equal to 15 per cent of net sums received by the husband in respect of deferred instalments for years up to 2009 and payable from 2011. This ensured that the overall award remained fair while giving proper weight to post-separation earnings.
5. The parties’ agreed child maintenance arrangements were ordered. The husband was also ordered to continue paying school fees after employment ended, subject to reconsideration by the court if the parties’ financial positions changed.

First-instance ancillary relief determination in the High Court (Family Division). No appellate history is stated in the judgment.