Evans v Evans

In a long marriage, wealth generated during the marriage is ordinarily shared equally. A departure requires a good reason grounded in the statutory factors and fairness. A claimed special contribution must be wholly exceptional and supported by striking evidence; creating substantial wealth alone is insufficient.

Where an asset generated during the marriage cannot be realised until after separation, the court may give weight to post-separation endeavour which contributes to its eventual value. The court may therefore make a percentage adjustment even where the non-marital element cannot be quantified precisely. Notional reattribution for dissipation requires clear evidence of wanton dissipation and must also be justified as necessary for a fair outcome.

The applicant wife and respondent husband had been married since 1985 and had accumulated substantial wealth, principally through shares in Confluence Technologies Inc, founded during the marriage. The shares were illiquid and expected to be realised only after further work by the husband.

The wife sought an equal division, maintenance and an adjustment for the husband’s expenditure. The husband relied on special contribution and post-separation endeavour to support an unequal division and sought a clean break. The rehearing followed an earlier financial hearing and order for a rehearing. The central issues were the appropriate division of the Confluence shares and other assets, maintenance, alleged dissipation, provision for the children and costs.

1. Division of capital. The governing principle was sharing. A special contribution justifying departure from equality must be wholly exceptional, such that ignoring it would produce an unfair result. The husband’s creation and development of Confluence did not meet that threshold. Both parties had made substantial contributions, including financial, domestic and business-related contributions.
2. The Confluence shares were matrimonial property because they were generated during the marriage. However, their eventual realised value would partly reflect the husband’s continuing post-separation endeavour. That justified a departure from equality, although the non-marital element could not be separately quantified. The fair overall division was 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife. The wife was awarded 44% of the shares and warrants, with the balance to the husband.
3. Reattribution. The wife established only part of the evidential basis for an add-back. Notional reattribution requires clear evidence of wanton dissipation and must be justified as necessary to achieve fairness. Although some expenditure was extravagant, the proposed adjustment was disproportionate in the context of total wealth and was refused.
4. Needs and maintenance. The non-Confluence assets were divided broadly equally, but their timing and liquidity were adjusted to meet the wife’s immediate housing needs. An immediate clean break would be unfair because the wife could not meet reasonable income needs pending realisation of the shares. The husband was ordered to pay maintenance of £140,000 per year while the relevant tax treatment continued, otherwise £100,000.
5. The children’s trusts could be used for school fees and maintenance, but past school fees were not to be reimbursed. The husband was required to give specified undertakings concerning the shares. The parties were generally ordered to bear their own costs, subject to specific orders concerning the warrants issue, relevant expert costs and the later costs hearing.

The judgment records a rehearing ordered by the President of the Family Division on 19 June 2012. The Court of Appeal subsequently varied the order concerning the decree on 13 August 2012. The present court determined the reheard financial application.