Z v Z & Ors

In a Part III application, the court must consider the statutory factors holistically and may fashion a bespoke award reflecting the applicant’s present and future needs. A prior foreign financial settlement does not necessarily prevent further relief where the court considers an order appropriate, but the settlement, delay, the provenance of the wealth and prejudice to the respondent may justify a conservative assessment. The court must give first consideration to the welfare of minor children. Housing provision may properly be stepped down when the children’s educational and housing needs change. The court need not transfer a trust property where continued occupation for a defined period, followed by a substantial housing fund and capital provision for income needs, gives a fair result.

The applicant sought financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following a Russian divorce and financial order made in 2009. At the Stage I hearing, the court decided that it was appropriate for the English court to make an order. This Stage II hearing concerned the quantum and structure of that relief.

The principal issues were the effect of the Russian settlement, the applicant’s delay in bringing the English proceedings, the non-matrimonial provenance of the respondent’s wealth, the applicant’s future housing and income needs, and the financial needs of the children.

The application succeeded in part. The court ordered continued rent-free occupation of the Kensington house for the applicant and the children until the youngest child completed tertiary education, expected in 2022. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a lump sum of £1,148,480 within 28 days. He was also ordered to pay £35,000 per annum for each of the two younger children, indexed and payable monthly, together with agreed or school-recommended additional tuition and necessary medical treatment.

1. Statutory approach. Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 required a holistic assessment. The matters listed in section 16 were not exhaustive. The court could devise a bespoke solution based on all the circumstances, while giving first consideration to the welfare of minor children.
2. Effect of the foreign settlement. The Russian order had been properly made and implemented. It was relevant, but it did not automatically bar further relief. The applicant had received substantial capital and had accepted a clean break in relation to spousal maintenance. Those matters, together with the delay and the respondent’s reliance on the apparent finality of the settlement, required restraint in assessing further needs.
3. Delay and wealth. The applicant’s delay included an element of tactical delay and had prejudiced the respondent. It therefore required a more conservative assessment of current and future needs. The wealth was gifted or inherited and was not the product of marital endeavour. That was a significant limiting factor, although the applicant’s contributions to the family and children remained relevant.
4. Housing and income. Transfer of the Kensington house, worth about £4.75 million, would produce an unfair result and was unnecessary beyond 2022. A future housing fund of £2.5 million was appropriate. After allowing for the applicant’s capital and anticipated rental income, the shortfall in her income fund was £1,148,480.

• High Court (Family Division): At the earlier Stage I hearing, the court decided that an English order was appropriate: [2016] EWHC 911 (Fam).
• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal the Stage I decision was refused by Lady Justice King on 26 May 2016.
• High Court (Family Division): The present judgment determined the quantum and structure of the Stage II award.