A matrimonial case in which a husband and wife with mid-range assets of approximately £2.3 million, where both argued for different outcomes, has resulted in costs of more than £200,000
Both are aged 50 and have managerial jobs. They have two children aged 11 and 9. The children live with their mother and spend time with their father at weekends and during the school holidays.
The couple met in 2011, married in September 2012 and had a relatively comfortable life. Arguments began about how much each contributed to their finances during the COVID pandemic, and the husband filed for divorce. This was a shock to the wife, and their relationship deteriorated. The husband withdrew the divorce application and agreed to a joint application.
This led to increasing suspicion of behaviour on both parts, each accusing the other of unpleasant and sometimes abusive behaviour.
Both applied for orders under the Family Law Act 1996. The husband moved out of the family home after agreement was reached. Cafcass did not report any safeguarding issues and a final order was made. Cafcass did, however, note the very difficult relationship between the parents and the impact it had on the children.
Husband and wife were litigants in person at first, and they found it difficult to communicate about joint assets, with disputes about property, rental income and both accusing each other of wasting money. A financial dispute resolution was held in January 2025 and was unsuccessful.
This was a case based around needs, much of it disputed. There were several properties. The former matrimonial home, valued at £1.2 million and a former family home, valued at around £900,000, both of which had mortgages and a holiday home with no mortgage. Husband and wife disputed the values of these properties. The husband had two further rental properties and the wife, one.
Other disputes elongated the process and added to the cost.
A loan of £19,000 to the wife from an uncle, that she said she had paid back, was disputed by the husband, who believed that the money would come back to his wife. The wife claimed that the husband had removed £20,000 worth of jewellery The judge could not find any evidence to back either of these statements up.
The wife claimed that over £200,000 worth of work was needed on the former matrimonial home, but the condition of the property had already been taken into account in the valuation.
The wife had paid the mortgage on the former matrimonial home in full since the separation in April 2024, and she thought that the husband should be liable for 50%. The judge said that it was highly likely that this would be offset by the amount the husband had paid in rent. She made the same request regarding the vacant former family home and her own rental property.
The wife originally only declared a pension with her current employer, valued at over £326,000. She later added two further pensions, valued at £240,000. The husband thought that she was trying to hide these. The husband had a pension with a lower value of around £173,000.
Both husband and wife suggested that the other had misappropriated or hidden matrimonial funds.
Both husband and wife put forward their own financial settlement proposals. The judge found that the wife’s figure would result in her receiving 67% of the non-pension assets and 68% of pension assets, and the husband’s figure would result in him receiving 69% of non-pension assets plus an equal pension share. He did not accept these proposals.
Neither got their wishes and the judge found that, with assets of just over £2.3 million, there were ‘sufficient funds’ for them both to ‘house themselves and the children and to continue to afford a reasonable standard of living’.
The judge ordered that:
- the former matrimonial home be transferred to the wife, subject to her releasing the husband from the mortgage within six months. If this should not happen, the house should be sold
- the jointly owned rental property should be sold, and the proceeds go to the husband
- the husband to be given first option to buy the wife’s share of the holiday home, failing which the wife could buy it. If neither happened, it should be sold and the proceeds shared
- the husband to receive 26.37% of the wife’s pension from her current employment and her wholly pre-marital pensions excluded
- all other assets and liabilities to remain with the named holder
This equated to the husband receiving 50.8% of realisable assets and the wife 49.2%. The overall pension split was 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband.
The judge concluded that, although he found both people to be ‘honest, decent and likeable’, the divorce and litigation ‘seem to have brought out the worst in them’, saying ‘This should not have been a difficult case to resolve and it is a shame that between them the parties have spent over £200,000 on legal costs.’
Juliette Dalrymple, director of Family Matters Mediation, says:
“As the judge says, this should not have been a complicated case, yet it attracted legal fees of £200,000. The matters were generally simple but various arguments made by both husband and wife, which were mostly rejected by the judge, led to the excessive cost. The judge also rejected the wife’s request to clawback almost £200,000 that she claimed had been dissipated and spent in post-separation. The couple could have reduced their legal costs significantly without these unnecessary arguments.
“It is clear that the separation process had eroded all trust between the couple, and each has made arguments which were not ultimately accepted by the judge. The mediation process would ensure that full and frank disclosure took place so that informed decisions could be reached based upon an understanding of each person’s needs for the future.
“Many cases we see can be resolved within a structured process of mediation often involving multiple houses and businesses. It is unfortunate that both people have spent so much money on legal fees when the divorce could have been resolved in mediation for considerably less cost – both financial and personal.”
