Judge infers husband’s assets after husband fails to engage
Both parties to a financial remedies claim on divorce are required to make full disclosure of their means to the court and the other party. This is of course required so that the court and the parties can decide what would be a reasonable settlement.
But sometimes one party fails to make full, or even any, disclosure, and the court is unable to force them to do so, for example because that party is living abroad.
What can the court do in such circumstances? It must still make a decision upon the other party’s claim.
The answer is that the court can make adverse inferences about the non-disclosing party’s means, as occurred in a recent case in the Family Court in London.
The case concerned a wife’s financial remedies application. As the judge pointed out: “The defining characteristic of this application is the [husband’s] non-attendance at any hearing within these proceedings and his failure to make any financial disclosure whatsoever. In fact, he has not engaged in these proceedings at all and has not entered into any communication with the applicant, her legal advisors or the court, nor has he instructed anyone else to do so on his behalf.”
The background to the case was that the wife was a British-born woman of Indian descent, living in London, and the husband was of Indonesian heritage, residing in Indonesia. The parties were married in 2003 and initially lived in Indonesia. However, in 2016 following the breakdown of the marriage the wife and two children of the family moved to London, where they have lived ever since.
The wife and children lived in a two-bedroomed rented flat. The wife was on benefits. The husband, meanwhile, continued to maintain the high standard of living that the family enjoyed before 2016.
The wife claimed that the husband owned four properties worth some £27.8 million, net of sale costs. She also claimed that he had business and other assets worth another £81 million, although she only sought half of the value of the properties.
Having considered the wife’s evidence the judge inferred and found that the husband did indeed own properties worth the amount stated by the wife. He also found that the husband’s other financial resources were sufficient that the highest award sought by the wife represented an outcome that was not unfair to the husband (although he was concerned that it may be unfair to the wife).
Accordingly, the judge awarded the wife a lump sum of £13.9 million. He also made a worldwide freezing order, preventing the husband from disposing of his assets, until such time as the lump sum is paid. In addition, he ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs.
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.
