Husband fails to show that financial remedies order was unreasonable

It is obviously not unusual for one party to believe that a financial remedies order made by the court is unreasonable.

In such circumstances the aggrieved party can seek to appeal against the order. However, the appeal court may not take the same view of the reasonableness of the order, as a husband recently found out in a case in the High Court in London.

The case concerned the husband’s financial remedies application, made after a 14-year childless marriage. At the time that the application was heard the husband was nearly 60, and the wife was 53 years of age.

The case involved relatively modest assets, with the amount that the parties were awarded totalling some £365,000.

The husband’s application was heard by the Family Court in Cardiff. The judge awarded the wife the sum of £210,000 and the husband the sum of £155,000.

The husband appealed, to the High Court. His grounds for appealing included that the outcome arrived at by the judge was one that no reasonable tribunal would have reached.

The husband’s argument was that, at almost 60 years of age and in poor health, he was unable to re-house himself, whereas the wife, who was 53 years of age, had 15 years of working life ahead of her. From the award, the wife could purchase a home for herself outright, whereas he could not.

In the light of this he claimed that the wife had been over-compensated – there was no reason why the assets should not have been divided equally.

Ms Justice Henke, hearing the appeal, disagreed.

The judge who made the award took into account the husband’s age and his ill health. However, he also, as he was entitled to do, relied upon the husband’s own case that his anxiety and depression did not affect his earning capacity.

The judge had considered both parties’ income and capital resources, but was not convinced that the husband had disclosed his true income and assets, and made findings of fact to that effect. He was entitled to make those findings, and to factor them into his decision-making.

The judge had looked at both parties’ needs, including their housing needs, and found that the wife needed some £210,000 to meet her needs. He acknowledged that this would leave the husband without enough to rehouse himself, but found that the husband could raise a small mortgage of about £27,000, which would enable him to buy a similar home to the one that the wife would be able to purchase.

In the circumstances the judge’s award was not unreasonable, and the husband’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

You can read the full report of 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: fizkes / Shutterstock.com