Husband found to have concealed true financial circumstances

A wife making a financial application on divorce has succeeded with her claim that the husband had failed to disclose his true financial circumstances.

The case was heard by Mr Justice Peel in the Family Court in London, in January this year.

The wife argued that the husband was guilty of non-disclosure, and that his claim that he possessed almost no assets was false.

In particular, the wife claimed that the husband had an interest in a Trust that held either 40% or 50% in a group of companies that had been co-founded by the husband. The husband denied that he had any interest in the Trust, claiming that the companies were on the verge of insolvency and worthless. He also claimed that he had no other meaningful resources.

The husband originally proposed that the wife keep a house that she occupied, which was worth £837,500, and that he pay the wife a lump sum of £1 million, which he said he would borrow from his late mother’s estate and from his brother.

The wife sought the house, plus a lump sum of £5 million.

Closer to the hearing the husband amended his offer, proposing a sale and equal share of the house, and equal division of any inheritance from his mother (worth £77,211 each). The change in his position was, he said, principally driven by the increased legal costs and decline in the financial health of the group of companies.

Clearly, the findings of the court as to the husband’s true financial circumstances were going to have a significant impact upon the award that the wife would receive.

And after examining the evidence Mr Justice Peel concluded that the husband had indeed concealed his true financial picture. In particular, he found that the husband had access to undisclosed assets in the Trust.

He did, however, accept that the group of companies were in significant difficulties. The husband’s wealth measured a few million pounds, but not sufficient to pay the sum sought by the wife.

Accordingly, he made an order that the wife keep the house, and that the husband pay her two lump sums: one of £525,000 to clear her debts, and one for £1,550,000, representing the capitalised amount that she would need to maintain 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: Pixel-Shot / Shutterstock.com