SS v IS

In varying a nuptial settlement, the court must structure relief so that the claimant receives a fair share of matrimonial assets while obtaining appropriate security and meeting future needs. A post-separation increase in business value may have a non-matrimonial element, but the original matrimonial contribution and continuing matrimonial connections may leave a residual matrimonial footprint. The court may transfer an interest in trust-held business assets rather than require an immediate cash valuation where that better preserves potential value. A capital clean break and a fixed, non-extendable maintenance term may be appropriate where the recipient has sufficient time and resources to adjust to independence.

The wife applied for financial remedy orders following a seventeen-year marriage. The parties had two children and substantial business interests held through offshore trust structures. The principal dispute concerned the variation of the Fine Trust, the treatment of the husband’s interest in a post-separation restaurant venture, the value and structure of the wife’s capital award, and the level and duration of spousal maintenance.

The wife sought transfer of 50% of the shares in two principal businesses, while the husband proposed to retain those interests and pay a lump sum based substantially on an existing offer from business partners. The court also had to determine whether the wife’s maintenance term should be extendable.

1. Financial structure. The court ordered a variation of the Fine Trust transferring 50% of the shares in POHL and GCG to a separate settlement or sub-trust for the wife. That structure better protected her ability to realise future value than fixing her entitlement solely by reference to the current offer from the business partners.
2. Business assets. The FSHL restaurant venture had both matrimonial and non-matrimonial features. Although the parties’ matrimonial capital was repaid following the external investment, the original funding and continuing connections with the marriage were not entirely extinguished. The court therefore rejected the husband’s contention that all subsequent value was wholly non-matrimonial, while recognising the husband’s unmatched post-separation contribution.
3. Sharing and needs. The outcome was determined by applying the factors in Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, including the parties’ needs, resources, earning capacity and the structure of the capital award. The wife’s claims were not met by the husband’s proposed £36,000 annual maintenance. The appropriate award was £60,000 per annum, index-linked.
4. Duration and final orders. The maintenance was ordered for ten years with a bar under s 28(1A) on any application to extend the term. The husband was also ordered to meet the children’s educational costs and pay child periodical payments. There was a capital clean break, with the wife’s income claims dismissed on the tenth anniversary of the order and the husband’s income claims dismissed immediately. There was no order as to costs, subject to existing unpaid orders.