Z v A

Part III relief is not automatically assessed as though the parties had divorced in England. The court must select the appropriate approach by reference to all the circumstances, particularly the strength of the English connections and any provision made abroad.

Primary consideration is given to the welfare of any child. The court must avoid awarding more than would have been available in domestic divorce proceedings and should, where possible, meet the reasonable needs of each spouse. In an international case with limited English connections, the court may assess fair and reasonable needs without importing English sharing or compensation principles. A clean break and outright capital provision may be appropriate where resources permit.

The applicant wife sought financial relief for herself and the parties’ child under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, following a divorce in Country Y. The parties had lived in several jurisdictions, had substantial assets, and had no financial order from the foreign divorce proceedings.

The wife sought £8 million in capital and income provision. The respondent husband proposed a housing fund limited to the child’s education, together with child maintenance. The central issue was the appropriate assessment of financial provision under Part III in a highly international case, having regard to the parties’ connections, resources, prior arrangements and the child’s welfare.

1. The application was determined under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, not as an ordinary English ancillary-relief claim. The court applied the flexible approach identified in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] 1 FLR 1813. The strength of the English connections helped determine the appropriate scale of the assessment.
2. The court gave primary importance to the child’s welfare under section 18. It also considered the short marriage, the parties’ international connections, their respective resources, the parties’ prior understanding that their finances would remain separate, the wife’s role as wife and mother, the high standard of living, and the desirability of a clean break.
3. The case was genuinely international. The court therefore assessed fair and reasonable provision for the wife’s and child’s needs without importing modern English notions of sharing or compensation. The wife’s claim for compensation for the decline of her accessories business was rejected, both because compensation was not appropriate in the circumstances and because it risked double-counting.
4. The housing need was assessed at approximately £4.25 million, taking account of the proceeds of the wife’s existing flat. The appropriate annual provision for the wife and child was assessed at about £250,000. The wife’s existing assets were not treated as requiring immediate complete amortisation, but a 3% net return was attributed to approximately £5 million of those assets.
5. The court ordered the husband to pay a £3 million lump sum and child maintenance of £50,000 per annum, backdated to commencement of the claim with credit for sums paid. The child maintenance was to be secured through adjustment of an existing trust fund. The disputed necklace was to be returned to the wife within 28 days, and the wife’s files and boxes within 21 days. Costs and security were reserved for a further hearing.