Husband receives less favourable settlement after failing to engage

It may seem obvious, but if a party fails to engage with the court process in financial remedy proceedings, they are likely to receive a less favourable settlement.

This manifest truth was clearly demonstrated in a recent case that took place in the Family Court sitting at Watford.

The case concerned a couple who had separated in 2021, with the wife remaining in the former matrimonial home, with the children of the family.

Following the separation the husband and wife agreed that the home (the only asset of any significance) would be transferred to the wife, that the wife would pay £80,000 to the husband on transfer, and that, upon the parties’ youngest child finishing secondary education, the wife would pay a further £50,000 to the husband, plus 10% of the increase in the value of the property over that period of time.

It was also agreed that the husband would pay maintenance of £900 per month. (In the event, he only paid this sporadically, and stopped paying entirely in December 2024.)

The wife instructed solicitors to ask the husband to agree to a consent order in the terms of the agreement, but the husband put up a brick wall, and did not engage.

The wife therefore issued a financial remedies application, seeking a different settlement.

Again, the husband failed to engage. He did not file a financial statement, or any evidence at all, and did not attend any of the hearings.

Accordingly, the judge at the final hearing had to proceed on the basis of the wife’s evidence alone.

The judge found that the equity in the former matrimonial home was £340,000. However, he found that it would be inappropriate for the husband to receive a half share, as he had a lower housing need than the wife, a greater mortgage capacity, and fewer demands on his income. The wife had also made greater post-separation contributions to the family.

Taking these factors into account, the judge found that the husband should only receive a quarter of the equity, or £85,000. From that, he deducted the unpaid maintenance under the agreement of £20,000, He also found that the husband’s litigation conduct was such that he should pay £12,000 towards the wife’s legal cost. That sum was also deducted from the husband’s share, leaving him with just £53,000.

Accordingly, the judge ordered that the husband transfer the former matrimonial home to the wife, in return for a lump sum of £53,000. If the husband failed to cooperate, then a judge would sign the transfer on his behalf, and the wife could retain the £53,000 in a bank account in her own name, keeping any interest for herself.

You can read the full judgment in the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.Image: Prostock-studio / Shutterstock.com