Fisayo Olaoluwa Awolowo v Olusegun Samuel Awolowo & Anor

In financial remedy proceedings, the party asserting a debt bears the burden of proving its existence on the balance of probabilities. Bank credits, a loan agreement and an uncontested foreign consent judgment may be insufficient where they do not establish the lender’s provenance of funds or the underlying debt.

A foreign judgment entered by consent, without a substantive inquiry and following a false presentation, may be refused recognition or set aside as contrary to public policy. A disposition made with the intention of defeating a financial relief claim may be set aside under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Related charging orders and land-registration entries may consequently be discharged.

The applicant wife pursued financial relief after an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The central preliminary issue was whether the husband owed £1.6 million to a company owned by his brother.

The alleged debt arose from a 2009 Nigerian loan agreement. A Nigerian consent judgment was later registered in England, and a charge and charging order were obtained over the former matrimonial home. The wife disputed the debt and applied to set aside the relevant orders.

The Court of Appeal had allowed an earlier appeal and remitted the preliminary issue for rehearing. The questions were whether the debt existed, its impact on the financial applications, and whether the Nigerian registration order and charging order should be set aside.

1. Debt not proved. The burden lay on the husband and Linkserve to establish the alleged £1.6 million debt on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that Linkserve had transferred the money. The husband’s bank statements showed receipts from Nigeria but did not establish their source or connect them with Linkserve. There were no corresponding Linkserve bank records, bookkeeping records, company accounts or other reliable evidence.
2. The court preferred the wife’s evidence and found that the husband had sufficient personal or business resources to purchase the former matrimonial home. The contemporaneous documents, the parties’ lifestyle, the absence of disclosure and the inconsistencies in the alleged loan documentation undermined the asserted debt. The court found collusion intended to defeat the wife’s financial remedy claim.
3. Nigerian judgment. The Nigerian order was a consent judgment obtained without a substantive inquiry into the loan or debt. It was not determinative of whether the debt existed, particularly because the wife had not been notified and had no opportunity to participate. The English court therefore examined the underlying transaction and rejected the assertion that the Nigerian order resolved the issue.
4. Consequential relief. The court declared that no debt was due. The registration order was set aside under sections 9(2)(f) and 9(4)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1920, applying CPR 2010 rule 3.1(7) to permit the wife to seek that relief as a party to the civil proceedings. Registration and enforcement would have been manifestly contrary to public policy.
5. The charge executed by the husband was set aside under section 23(2)(b) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 as a reviewable disposition made with the intention of defeating the wife’s claim for financial relief. The charging order and related land-registration entries were also set aside or discharged, subject to specified surviving notices. The husband was restrained from disposing of his interest in the former matrimonial home pending determination of the financial remedy proceedings.

• Court of Appeal: On 16 May 2025, allowed the wife’s appeal from the decision of HHJ Vincent and remitted the preliminary issues for rehearing.
• High Court (Family Division): On 18 December 2025, following rehearing, declared that no debt was owed and granted consequential set-aside and discharge orders.