Judge condemns husband’s ‘destructive behaviour’
It is sadly not unusual for one or both parties to behave badly after a marriage breakdown. This is of course completely understandable: feelings run high, and tempers are difficult to control.
And often the behaviour will carry on into court proceedings consequent upon the breakdown.
But a recently reported case featured such bad behaviour by the husband that the judge began his judgment with the following comment:
“This case has featured some of the most destructive behaviour I have seen for many years. I used the term ‘scorched earth’ during the course of argument. In my judgment, the term is entirely justified.”
The judge went on to explain how when the parties separated in 2021/2022 they had savings of over £80,000 from the proceeds of sale of their former family home, and they had a thriving business, which turned over in excess of £350,000 in the year to December 2020. The family had apparently been quite well off, with trappings of wealth, including designer clothing.
But by the time the wife’s financial remedies application reached court in December 2023 the money had gone, there were credit card debts on each side of about £20,000, the business was apparently in liquidation and the parties were left with potential further personal debt under personal guarantees that each of them had given to finance companies for the business’s activities.
In addition, the costs of the proceedings came to about £70,000 so far, and there were also ongoing child arrangement proceedings.
This situation had come about, said the judge, entirely as a result of the husband’s self-destructive behaviour. In the immediate aftermath of the separation, he made two specific threats: that the wife would get nothing, and that he would ruin the company.
As the judge explained, such threats are not unusual, but usually wiser counsel subsequently prevails. Here, however, the husband was good to his word. The whole company had indeed been ruined and, on the face of it, there appeared to be hardly anything left.
We need not go into the detail of exactly what the husband did, but suffice to say that the judge found that the impact of the husband’s conduct was such that, in considering what order to make, his needs had to be given a lower priority than the needs of the wife.
Accordingly, the wife was awarded the only significant remaining asset – a piece of land with an equity of about £70,000. She was also awarded 100% of the husband’s (modest) pension, and maintenance of £1,500 per calendar month, until the younger child attains the age of 21, or finishes university. In addition, the judge adjourned the wife’s capital claims against the husband for a period of five years, to enable her to pursue those claims within that time, if she wished.
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: Stokkete / Shutterstock.com
