T v T (Application for financial relief after an overseas divorce)

Part III financial relief after an overseas divorce is directed to alleviating the adverse consequences of inadequate foreign financial provision. The court must first decide whether an English order is appropriate, having regard to the statutory connecting factors and other matters in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Where the respondent provides no disclosure, the court should avoid allowing non-disclosure to produce a better outcome than disclosure would have produced. The sharing principle does not apply to Part III relief. An award may instead be assessed by reference to reasonable need. A capable applicant should not ordinarily receive a capitalised long-term maintenance element where a lump sum can meet housing need and the applicant can remain self-supporting.

The applicant wife sought financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following a Russian divorce obtained without her knowledge. The parties had been married for 25 years and had two adult children. The wife lived in England and Wales, while the respondent husband lived in Russia and failed to participate, provide disclosure or comply with financial orders.

The wife sought a lump sum reflecting her housing and income needs. The issues included whether an English order was appropriate, how the court should assess relief in the absence of disclosure, whether the wife was entitled to continuing maintenance or capitalised maintenance, and whether the husband’s Spanish company shares should be transferred to her.

1. Jurisdiction and appropriateness. The wife satisfied section 15(1)(b) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The restrictions in section 20 did not apply. Having considered the parties’ connections with England and Wales and Russia, the absence of provision in Russia, enforcement prospects and the timing of the application, it was appropriate to make an English order under section 16 (paras [19]-[22]).
2. Statutory framework. Section 18(3) imported the matters in section 25(2)(a)-(h) and the duties under section 25A(1)(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The intended order was therefore assessed with a clean break in view once paid in full (paras [23]-[25]).
3. Non-disclosure. The court could not reliably assess the husband’s total wealth or income. It nevertheless had to guard against a result in which the non-disclosing party benefited from his own default. The court declined to make a speculative overall wealth assessment, but used the available evidence and the wife’s reasonable needs to assess relief (paras [28]-[31]).
4. Nature of Part III relief. The sharing principle did not apply. Consistently with Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, Part III relief addressed the adverse consequences of no or inadequate foreign provision. The wife was entitled to a lump sum sufficient to meet reasonable housing need, assessed at £2,250,000. She was not entitled to an additional capitalised maintenance element because she was well qualified, had a good work record and was capable of supporting herself (paras [32]-[37]).
5. Orders. The husband was ordered to pay £2,250,000 by 12 June 2020, with judgment-rate interest thereafter. Interim maintenance remained payable until the lump sum was paid. The husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs on the indemnity basis. No order transferring the Spanish shares was made, and payment of the lump sum required the wife to relinquish any interest or claim in the Moscow flat (paras [38]-[44]).