TF v SF

In financial remedy proceedings, conduct under section 25(2)(g) requires proof of the relevant facts, conduct reaching the high or exceptional threshold, and an identifiable financial impact caused by that conduct. Generalised complaints about non-disclosure or inadequate interim provision do not ordinarily satisfy that test, although disclosure failures may justify proper and reasonable adverse inferences when resources are assessed.

Post-separation accrual may be matrimonial or non-matrimonial. Its assessment is fact-sensitive. Where value has been created partly during and partly after the marriage, a formulaic allocation may be inappropriate. The court may instead adopt a holistic assessment, while guarding against passive growth and recognising domestic and financial contributions.

The applicant husband sought financial remedies following the breakdown of a marriage lasting about 15 years, preceded by several years of cohabitation. The parties had three children, including a child aged 16. Their principal assets included a family business, property, liquid funds and substantial proceeds arising from the husband’s interest in a port development project.

The wife alleged non-disclosure, improper dealings with business assets, inadequate interim provision and conduct under section 25(2)(g). The husband argued that the port-project proceeds were entirely non-matrimonial post-separation assets. The central issues were the valuation of the parties’ resources, the treatment of those proceeds, the relevance of conduct, and the appropriate financial outcome.

1. Conduct and disclosure. The court applied the guidance in Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482. A court assessing the resources of a non-disclosing party may draw adverse inferences, but only where they are proper and reasonable and are justified by the nature and extent of the disclosure failure. It must not speculate.
2. Applying Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130, a party relying on conduct under section 25(2)(g) must prove the facts relied upon, conduct reaching a high or exceptional threshold, and an identifiable financial impact causally generated by the conduct. The allegations must be particularised sufficiently to identify the case to be met. The wife’s complaints about non-disclosure, interim provision and the handling of business assets did not amount to conduct within that provision.
3. Post-separation accrual. The court considered Hart v Hart [2018] 1 FLR 1283 and adopted a broad approach where value was generated by endeavour during and after the marriage. It rejected a purely formulaic allocation because the critical decisions concerning the project occurred during the marriage.
4. The court also applied the principles identified in GA v EL [2023] EWFC 206: post-separation non-matrimonial assets may exist even without undue delay; passive growth must not be counted as earned accrual; the court should consider whether one spouse benefits from investing the other’s unallocated funds; domestic contributions remain relevant; and the assessment must be made as fairly as possible on the facts. The court made a holistic assessment and treated part of the project value as post-separation accrual.
5. The court found total assets of approximately £30.4 million. The wife was awarded the family home, the balance of the escrow account and a lump sum of £4.8 million by 31 October 2025. This produced an award of about 43% of the total assets. The husband was also to meet the youngest child’s educational expenses and pay maintenance of £25,000 per annum by consent, with the wife entitled to apply to the Child Support Agency if consent was not given. A clean break was ordered, subject to the staged lump-sum payments and ancillary directions. The court gave a preliminary indication that the husband should pay £250,000 towards the wife’s costs.