Fields v Fields (Rev 1)

In a needs-based financial remedy case, fairness requires an overall assessment of the parties’ resources, needs, responsibilities, contributions and the welfare of dependent children. The court may make a substantial housing award where equal division would not meet the reasonable housing needs of the primary carer and children. Periodical payments may include a ring-fenced element enabling the recipient to build future financial security, particularly where there is a significant age or health disparity. The court should assess accessible pension assets as available resources, subject to appropriate allowance for tax. Where a party has no realistic earning capacity, it may be unreasonable to expect modest employment income to reduce the burden on a high-earning spouse. Future speculative business performance fees need not be shared where generous needs-based provision has already been made.

The wife sought financial remedies following divorce after a relationship of approximately nine and a half years. The parties had two young children, lived to a high standard, and had accumulated substantial assets during the marriage. The husband was a high-earning American lawyer. The wife had no current income or realistic earning capacity and was the children’s principal carer. She also relied on her own health difficulties and the daughter’s particular care needs.

The principal issues were the appropriate housing capital, the level and duration of periodical payments, whether the wife should receive provision for future financial security, the treatment of accessible pension assets, and whether she should share in future performance fees generated through the husband’s post-separation company.

The wife’s financial remedy claim succeeded. The court made a needs-based award after considering all the circumstances, the welfare of the children and the matters in Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25.

1. The wife and children had an overarching need for suitable housing. The appropriate minimum capital requirement was assessed at approximately £2,550,000, including stamp duty and moving costs. Equal division would not meet that need. The husband was therefore ordered to pay a lump sum of £1,200,000, with credit for any JIL shares transferred to the wife.
2. The wife had no realistic present earning capacity, and it was unreasonable to expect her to undertake modest employment merely to reduce the husband’s liability. Her provision was assessed on the basis that she should be treated as indefinitely single, while recognising that maintenance would cease automatically on remarriage.
3. The wife’s reasonable annual needs, excluding school fees, were assessed at £350,000. The children’s trust was expected to meet school fees and contribute £80,000 annually towards their other needs. The husband was ordered to pay £320,000 annually for the wife and £25,000 annually for each child.
4. The wife also had a current need to build financial security for the period when the husband’s income might reduce or cease. A further £100,000 annually was included for this purpose. That element was to be ring-fenced, although it could be used to repay a mortgage on a suitable home.
5. Accessible pension assets were treated as liquid resources, subject to deduction of the tax payable on immediate realisation. Future performance fees from JAML were not shared because the award already made generous needs-based provision. The wife retained her entitlement to performance fees referable to her JCML shares, and any future net bonanza from Immunoscience was to be shared equally.

The wife was to transfer her interest in the New York apartment to the husband, subject to protection against mortgage liability. The periodical payments were joint lives payments, with the children’s element index-linked.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined the wife’s financial remedy claim at first instance.