top of page

Family Court's Financial Remedy Decision in DH v RH: Asset Division After Non-Disclosure Allegations


In DH v RH [2024] EWFC 79, Mr. Justice MacDonald ruled on long-running financial remedy proceedings in the Family Court. The case involved complex allegations of non-disclosure and asset dissipation by the husband, RH, and the wife, DH, who had spent nearly £2 million in legal fees pursuing her claim. The court found no evidence supporting the wife’s allegations of undisclosed cryptocurrency and other assets worth over £178 million. The court ordered the distribution of the matrimonial assets totaling £13.25 million, with 52% allocated to the wife and 48% to the husband. The judgment emphasized fair asset division, taking into account reckless litigation conduct by the wife.


Case Overview:

  • Case Name: DH v RH

  • Court: Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice

  • Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWFC 79

  • Judgment Date: 18 April 2024

  • Judge: Mr. Justice MacDonald

  • Keywords: Financial Remedy, Non-Disclosure, Asset Division, Legal Costs


Legal Issues:

Non-Disclosure Allegations:

The wife accused the husband of hiding substantial assets, particularly in cryptocurrency, alleging that he concealed up to £178 million. However, the court found no sufficient evidence to support these claims.


Add Back of Legal Costs:

The husband argued that the wife's excessive spending on legal fees should be added back into her side of the asset schedule. The court agreed, adding back £800,000 to the wife’s share of assets, as her spending was deemed reckless and unfocused.


Court’s Analysis:

  • Computation of Matrimonial Assets: The court computed the matrimonial assets at £13.25 million, rejecting the wife's claims of undisclosed assets.

  • Distribution of Assets: The court divided the assets 52%-48% in favor of the wife, considering the husband’s higher earning capacity and the need for a fair outcome.

  • Legal Costs: The wife’s excessive legal fees were partially added back to her side of the balance sheet, reducing her overall share.


Judgment Summary:

The court ruled for an equal distribution of the computed assets, with the wife receiving 52% and the husband 48%. This decision accounted for the wife's reckless legal spending and ensured that both parties' housing and income needs were met.


Implications:

This case highlights the importance of full and timely financial disclosure in family law proceedings and sets a precedent for addressing reckless litigation conduct through the add-back principle.

4 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page