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.
Comments