NN v AS & Ors (Financial relief after overseas divorce) (Rev 1)

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 is not a means of topping up provision made after an overseas divorce merely because an English award would be higher. The court must consider the statutory venue and relief questions together, including the foreign provision, its implementation, the parties’ connections, available resources, delay and the child’s welfare.

Where the foreign agreement was freely reached, implemented and adequate to meet reasonable needs, a later shortfall caused by litigation costs will not ordinarily justify a further lump sum. Financial benefits include voluntary arrangements, such as rent-free occupation of a home. The court must also determine the true beneficial ownership of assets before assessing available resources.

The wife, an Egyptian national, obtained permission to pursue financial relief in England after an Egyptian divorce. The parties had lived mainly in Egypt, but the wife had lived in London with their son and sought further provision under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

The husband’s father and sisters were joined to determine beneficial ownership of three London properties and a yacht. The wife alleged that documents recording their interests were sham or forged transactions. The central issues were the ownership of those assets, the fairness and effect of the Egyptian divorce agreement, the resources available to meet a Part III claim, and whether further relief was appropriate.

1. The court found that the two London flats were held beneficially by the husband and his two sisters in equal shares. The relevant agreements operated as declarations of constructive and/or resulting trusts. The husband’s father was the sole beneficial owner of the LM Flat, and the yacht was held on resulting trust for him. The wife failed to establish sham, forgery or fraudulent manufacture of the documents.
2. Under sections 16 to 18 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, the court had to assess both whether England and Wales was an appropriate venue and whether relief should be granted having regard to all the circumstances. Hardship or injustice were relevant but were not preconditions. Part III could not be used simply to increase foreign provision to an English level.
3. The Egyptian agreement was voluntarily negotiated and implemented. The wife had independent wealth, had obtained English legal advice shortly before the agreement, had participated in negotiations, and had received the agreed lump sum and continuing support. The agreement, together with rent-free occupation of Flat 117, constituted the relevant financial benefit.
4. The court had to assess adequacy primarily by reference to the circumstances when the agreement was made, while considering the payer’s later means where appropriate. An order could not give the wife more than she would have received had all proceedings taken place in England. Litigation costs could not be converted into a claim against the husband.
5. The child’s welfare was the first consideration. The wife had sufficient connection with England to justify an order because the Egyptian arrangements were not shown to be a formal enforceable order and the child was habitually resident in England. However, the appropriate relief was confined to the husband’s open offer: continued rent-free occupation of Flat 117 until the child reached 18 or completed secondary education, with appropriate security and continuing support. No order was made for mesne profits.

First-instance judgment. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.