D v D

Allegations of financial non-disclosure require a sound evidential basis. The court may draw reasonable adverse inferences and quantify hidden assets broadly, but opportunity, opacity or suspicion alone is insufficient. The court must assess the evidence as a whole and avoid attributing undisclosed wealth merely because concealment was theoretically possible.

Future receipts from matrimonial business contracts may be shared by percentage where their timing and value cannot reliably be predicted. A percentage of net recovery may be fairer than a fixed capitalised sum where it avoids speculative assumptions and preserves fairness to both parties.

The parties had been married for nearly 20 years and had three children. Their principal assets included a business, trust assets, properties and prospective receipts from debt-recovery mandates. The wife alleged that the husband had concealed substantial assets through associates, side agreements and transactions outside the business accounts.

The central issues were whether non-disclosure had been proved, how the prospective mandate receipts should be treated, and what financial provision was fair having regard to the parties’ needs, assets, children and the husband’s approaching retirement.

1. Non-disclosure. The wife bore the burden of proving non-disclosure on the ordinary civil standard. The court adopted the guidance in NG v SG (Appeal: Non-Disclosure) [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam), including the need for a sound evidential basis, reasonable adverse inferences and realistic quantification. Direct evidence, non-compliance with disclosure obligations and a lifestyle inconsistent with disclosed resources were recognised as common evidential foundations. Mere opportunity to conceal funds, suspicion, or two improper tax-saving transactions did not justify the wider finding sought.
2. The alleged conspiracy and hidden assets were not proved on the balance of probabilities. The husband was censured for the school-fee transactions and false supporting invoices, but those matters did not establish general non-disclosure or justify an additional 25% share of the former matrimonial home.
3. Mandate run-off. The future debt-recovery receipts had a substantial matrimonial element. Their timing and value were too uncertain for reliable capitalisation. The wife was therefore awarded 33.33% of the net sums recovered, after specified costs, third-party payments and tax, with separate contingent lump-sum payments. An agreed accountant was to assist with verification and his costs were to be shared equally.
4. Financial provision. Applying the checklist in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, the court concluded that the parties’ needs were met by an essentially equal division, subject to the mandate-run-off discount. The children’s education fund was fixed at £500,000. Maintenance was set at £10,000 per child annually, reduced to £5,000 during first-degree study.
5. The parties’ partnership drawings were treated as equalised without adjustment. The wife was ordered notionally to pay £35,000 to equalise the parties’ legal-cost burden, having regard to the discretion under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 28.3(6).

This was a first-instance financial remedy determination. The proceedings had been transferred to the High Court after the First Appointment. A Financial Dispute Resolution appointment before Parker J did not result in settlement, and the matter proceeded to final hearing before Mrs Justice Roberts.