B v B

In a financial remedy claim, pre-marital wealth may be excluded from the sharing exercise where it underpinned the parties’ later prosperity, but the court must first assess needs and then test the overall fairness of the result. The party asserting pre-marital property bears the burden of proving it by clear documentary evidence.

The court should consider the duration of the relationship, mingling, passive growth and any springboard effect. Contributions should be assessed broadly unless exceptional contribution or conduct is relied upon. Reattribution may be preferable to setting aside a transaction where the relevant capital can simply be treated as belonging to the disposing spouse. A pension in payment retains a capital value and must be valued using the prescribed methodology.

The wife applied for financial remedies following a marriage of approximately 15 years. There were no children. The parties’ wealth had been accumulated through commercial property businesses, substantially developed from assets and interests held by the husband before cohabitation.

The principal issues were the treatment of the husband’s pre-marital wealth, the effect of disputed or late-disclosed transactions, the parties’ respective needs and contributions, the wife’s alleged cohabitation, the valuation of the husband’s pension, and the appropriate clean-break award.

1. Pre-marital wealth. The husband’s provable pre-marital wealth was assessed at approximately £823,000 and rounded to £820,000. Applying the approach in N v F, S v S and Jones v Jones, the court considered whether pre-marital property should be reflected, how much should be excluded, and whether the resulting award was fair overall. The wealth had underpinned the parties’ prosperity and was excluded from the divisible assets.
2. Proof and transactions. A party asserting pre-marital assets must prove them by clear documentary evidence. Following Purba v Purba, it was unnecessary to set aside certain transactions where the capital could be reattributed to the husband. The transfer of shares to the husband’s brother was therefore retained, but an uncovenanted element was reattributed.
3. Needs, sharing and contributions. The wife’s capital and income needs were assessed by reference to the parties’ standard of living, housing, vehicle, overdraft, future expenditure and earning capacity. Her contribution was full and significant, including her role in the businesses. The resulting award of £1.74 million represented approximately 40.46% of the total assets and fairly balanced needs, sharing, contributions and pre-marital wealth.
4. Cohabitation and pension. The husband failed to establish cohabitation sufficient to reduce the wife’s capitalised maintenance award. The husband’s pension in payment had a capital value. A pension sharing order was not made because the necessary valuation evidence had not been provided.
5. Order. The former matrimonial home and the wife’s shares were transferred to the husband. He was ordered to pay a lump sum of £1,887,560 within six months, with interim periodical payments continuing at £4,000 per month pending payment. There was a lifetime clean break and no order as to costs.

First-instance financial remedy determination in the High Court, Family Division. No appeal history was stated in the judgment.