JULIA GODDARD-WATTS v JAMES GODDARD-WATTS

On reopening financial remedy proceedings after non-disclosure, the court has a flexible discretion. It need not automatically conduct the entire exercise afresh. It may isolate the undisclosed asset or issue and tailor the remedy to the defect in the original order. The correct approach depends on the nature and reach of the non-disclosure, the fairness of the earlier division, and proportionality. Post-separation increases in the value of an asset already shared ordinarily do not justify reopening the capital division. Nevertheless, the court must assess the statutory factors and may make a needs-based award, taking account of the parties’ resources and relevant contributions.

The wife’s financial remedy claim followed a 2010 consent order made after the parties’ divorce. The husband subsequently disclosed significant trust assets, and the original order was set aside. In 2016, Moylan J awarded the wife a further lump sum while adopting a limited approach based on Kingdon v Kingdon. That order was later set aside by Holman J after further deliberate non-disclosure concerning a possible sale of the husband’s business interests.

At this second rehearing, the court considered whether to determine the claim entirely afresh or adopt a tailored approach, and whether the wife was entitled to share in the post-separation increase in the value of the business. A further issue was the extent of any needs-based award under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

1. The claim was adjudicated de novo, but the court retained a discretion to adopt a tailored approach. Non-disclosure does not invariably require the whole order to be dismantled. The court may isolate the affected issue where the earlier division of other assets was fair and the defect can be repaired proportionately.
2. The wife had received her fair share of the business at separation. The later increase in value resulted substantially from the husband’s post-separation endeavour. Changes in an asset’s value after an order effecting sharing do not ordinarily justify reopening capital claims.
3. The court nevertheless considered all the factors in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The wife’s prolonged responsibility for the children was relevant to her needs assessment, although it did not generally create an entitlement to share in post-separation wealth.
4. A bespoke needs-based award of £1.1m was made. The claim for an additional sum representing historic legal costs was rejected.

The judgment states that earlier orders were set aside following non-disclosure. Moor J set aside the 2010 consent order, and permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal. Moylan J made a further order on 23 November 2016. Holman J subsequently set aside that order after further non-disclosure; permission to appeal was again refused. This judgment determined the second rehearing.