Husband unable to prove claimed downturn in his finances

It is not uncommon that when a financial remedy application is made on divorce one party will claim that their finances had suffered a recent dramatic downturn, that could obviously significantly reduce the settlement that the other party might expect to receive.

Clearly, such a claim is likely to be met with some suspicion by the other party, and possibly even by the court. The court will therefore require the party making the claim to prove that their finances have indeed suffered a downturn.

That is what happened in a recent case in the Central Family Court in London.

The case concerned a financial remedies application by the wife.

The husband worked in sales, in which he thrived, gaining a worldwide reputation, and reaping the rewards accordingly. He admitted that around the time of the separation in 2020, and for a couple of years thereafter he had been earning at least £60,000 per month, and perhaps much more. He also admitted that as recently as August 2022 he spent at least £35,000 in a month on luxury entertainment and lifestyle.

But when the wife’s application went to what was supposed to be a final hearing in December 2023 the husband claimed that he had no capital, no business, income of £5000 per month, and nothing more. If this was indeed the situation, then then the claims being made by the wife were utterly unrealistic and far too high.

The court therefore adjourned the hearing and ordered the husband to make full disclosure of his means, in particular in support of his claim that he had recently suffered such a dramatic downturn in his financial circumstances.

The wife’s application eventually went back before the court for a final hearing in June this year.

The husband, however, had failed to make the disclosure that he had been ordered to make, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.

In the circumstances the court simply proceeded on the basis that there had been no change, and that his financial circumstances were as before. As the judge stated, if that was not so then the husband only had himself to blame.

In the absence of any information about any capital the husband possessed, the court was not able to make a capital order in favour of the wife. However, it did adjourn the wife’s capital claims for ten years, so that the wife could proceed with them if, within that period, she found evidence that the husband did indeed possess significant capital.

Otherwise, the court ordered the husband to pay maintenance to the wife, in the sum of £5,500 per month.

In addition, the court ordered the husband to pay all of the wife’s legal costs.

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