ZN v GN

In a needs-based financial remedy claim, the court must undertake the discretionary exercise required by section 25, considering all relevant circumstances. Particular weight may be given to the scale of the parties’ wealth and resources, the length of the marriage, the applicant’s age and health, and the marital standard of living.

The standard of living must be assessed over the marriage as a whole. Its relevance increases with the length of the marriage, but it must not dominate the assessment. The award should meet reasonable housing and income needs without simply reproducing a short-lived and unusually expensive period of expenditure. The applicant must be treated without gender discrimination.

The parties had been married for 22 years and had three children. The wife had no conventional employment history and benefited from substantial family trusts. The husband worked as a self-employed insurance broker and advanced a needs-based claim following the breakdown of the marriage.

The principal issues were the appropriate housing fund, the income required before and after retirement, the relevance of the parties’ recent and unusually high standard of living, and the extent to which trust resources and existing capital should be taken into account.

1. The husband’s application succeeded. The court assessed his claim as needs-based and awarded a total of £2.85 million, comprising housing and income needs. The parties’ agreed arrangements concerning H House, liabilities and the husband’s business interest were implemented, with a clean break and no child maintenance order.

2. The court applied the discretionary exercise under section 25, taking account in particular of the parties’ wealth and resources, the 22-year marriage, the husband’s age and health, and the standard of living. The principles were supported by BD v FD [2017] 1 FLR 1420 and FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1093.

3. The standard of living had to be assessed across the marriage. The much higher expenditure during the final three years, associated with H House, live-in help, polo and a substantial gift received by the husband, was not representative of the marriage as a whole. The husband was therefore not entitled to housing or income designed simply to replicate that temporary level.

4. A housing fund of £2.05 million was reasonable. It provided for a property costing approximately £1.7 million, associated SDLT, costs liabilities and a sum for works or refurbishment. An income of £100,000 net per year until retirement, reducing to £70,000 thereafter, was sufficient to provide a comfortable standard of living for the husband and the children when staying with him.

5. The court expressly guarded against gender discrimination. The husband’s claim was assessed by reference to reasonable needs and the parties’ circumstances, rather than reduced because he was male.