Blog Archives - James Thornton Family Law

17 January 2025

Navigating Maintenance Pending Suit and LSPOs: Lessons from HA v EN [2025] EWHC 48 (Fam)

The High Court's decision in HA v EN provides essential guidance on applications for Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) and Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs) in high-net-worth divorce proceedings. The judgment offers valuable insights into the interplay between interim maintenance, disclosure obligations, and the procedural expectations for securing legal funding during financial disputes.

Case Overview: HA v EN

The case centred on a wife’s applications for MPS and an LSPO. She argued that her husband, a wealthy entrepreneur, had failed to provide adequate financial support during the proceedings and had not fully disclosed his assets.

Key Issues:

MPS Application:
The wife requested £12,000 per month to meet her immediate living expenses, citing the husband’s alleged wealth and her financial dependence.
LSPO Application:
She sought a substantial sum to cover her unpaid legal fees and future litigation costs, asserting that she could not secure alternative funding.
Disclosure Gaps:
The husband’s financial disclosure was challenged for being inconsistent, particularly regarding the true value of his business interests.

Key Findings

Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS):

Pragmatic Award:
Despite the wife’s failure to provide a detailed budget, the court awarded her £12,000 per month, emphasising a “broad-brush approach” to interim support.
Rejection of “Unless Order”:
The wife’s attempt to seek an “unless order” requiring the husband to pay or face procedural penalties was dismissed. The court clarified that MPS orders must remain straightforward and cannot extend to new procedural remedies.

Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO):

Application Standards:
The court evaluated the wife’s LSPO application under Sections 22ZA and 22ZB of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, focusing on whether she could access alternative funding and the reasonableness of her request.
Award Granted:
Recognising the wife’s inability to pay her legal fees and the husband’s capacity to contribute, the court approved a significant LSPO.

Disclosure Assumptions:

The court highlighted its power to make “robust assumptions” when disclosure is inadequate. The husband’s lack of transparency regarding his business valuations led the court to adopt a cautious approach favouring the wife.

Guidance for MPS and LSPO Applications

Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS):

Prepare a Detailed Budget:
While the court can adopt a broad approach, applicants should submit a clear and realistic interim budget to support their claims.
Focus on Immediate Needs:
MPS is designed to meet basic living expenses during proceedings. Ensure that claims reflect reasonable and immediate requirements.
Avoid Procedural Overreach:
Innovative remedies, such as “unless orders,” may be rejected if they fall outside established statutory frameworks.

Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs):

Demonstrate Lack of Alternatives:
Applicants must show they cannot secure litigation funding from other sources, such as loans or family contributions.
Justify the Amount:
Requests should detail how the funds will be spent, with a focus on proportionality to the case’s complexity.
Highlight Reasonableness:
Ensure the requested amount aligns with the applicant’s financial needs and the respondent’s ability to pay.

Address Disclosure Early:

Non-disclosure can complicate proceedings and lead to adverse assumptions. Parties should be encouraged to provide full and frank disclosure from the outset.

Lessons from HA v EN

The judgment reinforces several critical principles:

Transparency is Key: Non-disclosure can significantly influence interim awards and broader financial outcomes.
Broad Judicial Discretion: Courts balance fairness with practicality, especially when immediate support or legal funding is required.
Flexibility in Interim Relief: While the court can adapt its approach, well-prepared applications remain essential to achieving favourable outcomes.

Conclusion

HA v EN highlights the complexities of securing interim financial relief in high-net-worth divorces. By focusing on transparency, realistic claims, and procedural rigor, practitioners can navigate MPS and LSPO applications more effectively. This case serves as a reminder of the courts’ commitment to fairness while maintaining a practical approach to financial disputes.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, legal services payment order, lspo, maintenance pending suit, mps, unless order

16 January 2025

A Case Worth Barking About: FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384

The case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 may sound like an amusing nod to "Fido," the quintessential dog name, but behind the light hearted coincidence lies a serious family law judgment. This case addressed critical issues surrounding financial remedies, including housing stability, maintenance, and fairness—particularly in circumstances where resources are limited.

While the name might catch attention, it is the practical application of legal principles that makes this judgment noteworthy for practitioners and families navigating post-separation finances.

Case Background

The proceedings revolved around the division of modest assets following the breakdown of a marriage. The couple’s primary asset was the family home, which became the focal point for meeting the financial and housing needs of both parties and their children. Key issues included:

Housing Stability: Ensuring the children and their primary carer (the wife) could remain in a secure living environment.
Income Maintenance: Determining an appropriate level of support for the wife and children while acknowledging the husband’s limited financial capacity.
Equitable Division: Balancing fairness and practicality given the limited resources available to both parties.

Core Issues and the Judgment

Housing and Mesher Orders
The court prioritised the housing needs of the wife and children. The family home was allocated to the wife under a Mesher order, which deferred its sale until the children reached adulthood or completed their education. This approach provided the wife with stability while preserving the husband’s interest in the property for future realisation.
Nominal Spousal Maintenance
Given the husband’s limited means, the court awarded a nominal spousal maintenance order. This allowed for flexibility should the wife’s financial needs change in the future, reflecting the court’s pragmatic approach to ongoing support.
Balancing Limited Resources
The court emphasised that fairness does not always mean equality. The husband retained a smaller share of the assets to ensure the wife and children’s immediate needs were met, underscoring the principle that needs often take precedence in modest asset cases.

What Makes This Case Memorable?

Beyond the substance of the ruling, the case name FI v DO invites a smile. The resemblance to "Fido" serving as a reminder that even in serious legal matters, small quirks can make a case more engaging and memorable. This light hearted connection also adds a twist to the case that makes it stand out in the legal world, especially since the wife was granted the family dog as part of the settlement.

This decision brings to the forefront a growing trend in family law where pets, once considered mere property, are now given more consideration in light of the emotional bonds families form with them. In FI v DO, the dog’s well-being played a role in the overall fairness of the proceedings, showing that pets can hold significant emotional value for family members post-separation.

The ‘Treats’ for Family Law Practitioners

The judgment offers several important lessons for those navigating similar cases:

Flexibility in Housing Solutions: Mesher orders remain a valuable tool in balancing immediate needs with future interests, offering long-term stability while preserving equitable interests in property.
Prioritising Needs Over Strict Equality: When resources are limited, the court is more likely to focus on meeting the needs of the primary carer and children, rather than striving for an equal division of assets.
Tailored Maintenance Orders: Nominal spousal maintenance can provide a flexible safety net without placing undue financial pressure on the paying party, particularly in cases with limited assets.

Conclusion

While the name FI v DO might elicit a chuckle, the judgment underscores the serious considerations that go into ensuring fairness in financial remedy proceedings. By addressing housing, maintenance, and the division of limited resources, the case highlights the court’s commitment to practical solutions tailored to the realities of family life post-separation. And, of course, it serves as a reminder that sometimes, even in serious legal matters, a dog’s life as part of the family can make a big difference.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, dog, fido, mesher

16 January 2025

Promoting Constructive Solutions: Practicing Family Law Under Resolution’s Code of Practice

At James Thornton Family Law, we are committed to helping our clients navigate family law matters with empathy, integrity, and professionalism. A cornerstone of this commitment is Managing Director, James Thornton’s membership in Resolution, a leading community of family law professionals. By practicing under Resolution’s Code of Practice, James ensures that our approach aligns with the highest standards of care and collaboration.

What Does Resolution's Code of Practice Mean for You?

Resolution’s Code of Practice is more than a set of guidelines; it’s a philosophy for family law professionals. By adhering to this code, we:

Promote Constructive Approaches: We focus on reducing conflict and finding solutions that work for the entire family, particularly where children are involved.
Encourage Fairness and Respect: Every case is approached with an emphasis on respect and understanding, ensuring that all parties feel heard and valued.
Aim for Cost-Effective Outcomes: By minimising unnecessary conflict, we help keep legal costs manageable and proportional.
Commit to Ongoing Professional Development: As a Resolution member, I regularly update my knowledge and skills to provide you with the most effective legal advice.

Why Resolution Membership Matters

Choosing a family lawyer who is a member of Resolution provides peace of mind. It assures you that your case will be handled:

With empathy, recognising the emotional challenges of family law issues.
In a non-confrontational manner, focusing on resolution rather than escalation.
Using creative solutions tailored to your unique circumstances.

How This Benefits Our Clients

At James Thornton Family Law, practicing under Resolution’s Code of Practice means:

Clear Communication: We prioritise open and honest dialogue.
Tailored Strategies: Your case receives a bespoke approach, ensuring outcomes are aligned with your goals and values.
Future-Focused Solutions: We help you move forward, equipping you with resolutions that last beyond the immediate legal process.

Championing the Year of the Code 2025

As part of Resolution’s Year of the Code 2025, we are proud to reaffirm our dedication to constructive and ethical family law practices. This initiative underscores the importance of the Code of Practice in transforming the way family disputes are managed, emphasising collaboration over confrontation.

Choose a Resolution Member for Your Family Law Needs

Navigating family law issues can be challenging, but you don’t have to face them alone. By choosing James Thornton Family Law, you’re choosing a practice that prioritises your well-being, advocates for fair outcomes, and adheres to the highest professional standards.

If you’re ready to work with a Resolution member committed to constructive and compassionate family law, contact James today via our website. Let’s find the best path forward, together.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: code of practice, resolution, year of the code 2025

15 January 2025

Divorce, Reconciliation, and the Court’s Discretion: Insights from HK v SS [2025] EWFC 5

The recent case of HK v SS offers valuable lessons on how courts handle divorces complicated by reconciliation attempts and the delayed application for a final order. This case is particularly notable because it explores the court's discretion under the Divorce, Dissolution, and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) when parties reconcile after a conditional order is granted but separate again.

Case Background

The parties, married for 11 years, separated in 2022, and the wife filed for divorce under the DDSA 2020. The process progressed smoothly, with a conditional order granted in October 2022. However, instead of applying for a final order, the parties reconciled in March 2023, resuming life together for 15 months before separating again in June 2024. The wife applied for the conditional order to be made final in August 2024.

The case raised an important question: How should the court exercise its discretion when reconciliation occurs between the conditional order and the application for a final order?

Legal Framework for Divorce in England

The Divorce, Dissolution, and Separation Act 2020 reformed divorce law in England, introducing "no-fault divorce" and simplifying the process.

Conditional Order:
After 20 weeks of filing, the applicant can apply for a conditional order. The court ensures procedural compliance before granting it.
Final Order:
The final order can be applied for six weeks after the conditional order. If over 12 months pass, the applicant must provide an explanation for the delay.
Court’s Discretion:
The court has discretion to refuse the final order if subsequent events invalidate the original basis for divorce (e.g., long-term reconciliation).

Court’s Decision in HK v SS

Reconciliation vs. Irretrievable Breakdown:
The court held that reconciliation lasting under two years does not automatically negate the irretrievable breakdown of marriage declared at the conditional order stage. Judge Simmonds emphasised that reconciliation is a gradual process that parties should be encouraged to attempt without fear of invalidating the divorce application.
Guidance for Couples:
- Reconciliations under two years generally do not prevent final orders unless there is clear evidence that the marriage has been fully repaired.
- Reconciliations beyond two years could be viewed as evidence that the marriage no longer meets the criteria for irretrievable breakdown.
Avoid a 'Computer Says No' approach:
Refusing the final order would serve little purpose since either party could initiate new divorce proceedings immediately. The court prioritised practicality over procedural rigidity.

Key Lessons for Family Lawyers

Importance of Timing:
Delays in applying for final orders after conditional orders should be accompanied by clear explanations, particularly when reconciliation occurs.
Encouragement of Reconciliation:
The judgment highlights a balanced approach, allowing couples to attempt reconciliation without the looming threat of losing progress in divorce proceedings.
Wide Discretion of Courts:
Courts retain broad discretion to address unique circumstances, ensuring that the process remains fair and reflective of the parties’ realities.

Conclusion

HK v SS reinforces the flexibility and understanding of England’s no-fault divorce framework. It showcases how courts prioritise fairness and practicality, even in cases complicated by reconciliation. For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of advising clients about the implications of reconciliation and the procedural nuances of the Divorce, Dissolution, and Separation Act 2020.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: delay divorce, reconciliation

10 January 2025

Balancing Needs and Inherited Wealth: Lessons from ST v AR [2025] EWFC 4

In a recent case, one of the first to be reported in 2025, HHJ Vincent tackled one of the most intricate financial remedy cases of recent times. At the heart of ST v AR [2025] EWFC 4 were disputes over inherited wealth, matrimonialisation, and the claimant's financial needs post-separation. The decision sheds light on how courts approach such complex scenarios, offering invaluable insights for practitioners. It is one of the first big money cases to be determined following the Court of Appeal decision in Standish v Standish last year.

Key Facts

The husband, a 70-year-old sculptor, benefited from a substantial inheritance held in private equity-managed properties.
The wife, 51, had not worked for most of the relationship, relying on her husband’s resources.
Their combined lifestyle was one of considerable affluence, involving private jets, yachts, and extensive staff.
The couple shared a child, whose financial future was secured through significant trust funds.

Despite the wealth, the wife’s claim was adjudicated on the basis of needs rather than a sharing claim, as the husband’s assets were deemed predominantly non-matrimonial. The wife was awarded 65% of the liquid assets (which represented 9% of the total assets), by reference to her needs.

The Central Issues

Inherited Wealth and Matrimonialisation:
- The husband argued that his inherited wealth, which he passively managed, should remain non-matrimonial.
- The court supported this view, finding no evidence that the assets had been intermingled or actively traded in a manner that would render them matrimonialised.
Assessing Needs:
- While the wife proposed a housing fund of £4.4 million and capitalised maintenance of over £14 million, the court assessed her reasonable needs more conservatively.
- The court scrutinised past spending habits but focused on ensuring her future financial security while reflecting the family’s historical standard of living.
Housing and Lifestyle:
- The family home was valued at £3.6 million. Both parties sought its transfer, but the court balanced housing needs equitably, emphasising the child's welfare.

Significant Principles from the Case

Matrimonialisation of Non-Marital Assets: As clarified in Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, matrimonialisation must be applied narrowly. In this case, the husband's passive investment approach reinforced the non-matrimonial status of his inheritance.
The Needs Principle: The court emphasised that even substantial non-matrimonial wealth could only be drawn upon to meet reasonable needs, with no entitlement to a sharing claim absent specific justification.
Complex Asset Structures: With investments tied up in LLCs and private equity, the court acknowledged these as illiquid assets, factoring tax liabilities and investment restrictions into the overall valuation.

Why This Case Stands Out

The Interplay of Needs and Inherited Wealth: Courts often grapple with balancing respect for non-matrimonial wealth with meeting the needs of the financially dependent spouse. This case exemplifies that delicate exercise.
Pragmatism in Awards: The judgment reflected a tailored approach, considering the wife’s long-term security while not overreaching into non-matrimonial funds.
Luxury Meets Litigation: Details such as the husband’s yacht and a portfolio worth tens of millions underscore the complexities in adjudicating ultra-high-net-worth divorces.

Key Aspects for Practitioners

When assessing claims against inherited wealth, the court will closely examine the asset's source, use, and whether it has been "woven into" the matrimonial fabric.
Illiquid assets present significant challenges in valuation and enforceability of awards, necessitating clear and robust evidence.
While the needs principle remains paramount in high-net-worth cases, courts ensure that awards reflect realistic post-separation financial independence.

This case adds another layer to our understanding of financial remedies, particularly in the context of wealth preservation and the concept of matrimonialisation. It serves as a valuable reminder of the court’s nuanced, fact-specific approach to achieving fairness in divorce proceedings.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, inherited wealth, standish v standish

10 January 2025

A Litigant’s Guide to Financial Fairness

Navigating financial settlements during divorce can be overwhelming, especially for litigants in person. The Family Justice Council’s March 2024 guide, "Sorting Out Finances on Divorce," serves as an essential resource for individuals seeking clarity in an often-confusing process.

Key Principles of Financial Settlements

Prioritising children’s welfare: The law mandates that the needs of children come first, ensuring stable housing and financial support.
Meeting financial needs: Settlements aim to provide both partners with housing and income to meet their reasonable needs, considering factors like age, earning capacity, and standard of living during the marriage.
Achieving a “clean break”: Wherever possible, the goal is to enable financial independence post-divorce, though this may not always be feasible.

Practical Guidance for Litigants

The guide emphasises transparency and cooperation:

Full financial disclosure: Both parties must provide complete information about their assets and income to facilitate fair negotiations.
Consent orders: Turning agreements into binding court orders ensures enforceability and prevents future disputes.
Accessing support: While legal aid is limited, resources like mediation can provide affordable pathways to resolution.

Empowering Litigants

By demystifying complex legal principles and offering real-world examples, the guide empowers individuals to negotiate fair settlements. However, it also underscores the need for systemic reforms to make the process more accessible and equitable.

Financial fairness shouldn’t be a privilege reserved for those with legal representation—it’s a right for all.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: financial fairness, guide, litigant, report

9 January 2025

The Law Commission’s Vision for Certainty and Fairness

The Law Commission’s December 2024 Scoping Report ‘Financial remedies on divorce and dissolution’ takes a comprehensive look at the legal framework governing financial remedies on divorce and dissolution in England and Wales. While the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides the statutory basis, its reliance on judicial discretion has led to significant criticisms.

Key Criticisms of the Current Law

Uncertainty: Wide judicial discretion creates unpredictable outcomes, making it difficult for divorcing couples to negotiate settlements or predict court decisions.
Lack of clarity: Concepts like “needs” and the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property remain nebulous, often leading to confusion and dispute.
Barriers to justice: High legal costs and complex procedures deter many couples from seeking court intervention.

Proposals for Reform

The Commission identified four potential models for reform, emphasising fairness and accessibility:

Codifying financial needs: Defining “needs” to provide clearer guidance for practitioners and judges.
Enhancing predictability: Introducing statutory guidelines for asset division to reduce reliance on case law.
Strengthening ADR mechanisms: Promoting mediation, arbitration, and other forms of dispute resolution to minimise litigation.
Addressing inequalities: Ensuring fair treatment of non-matrimonial property and compensating for economic disadvantages arising from marriage roles.

A Path Forward

The Scoping Report stops short of making recommendations but provides a robust foundation for future reform. By aligning with international best practices and prioritising equitable outcomes, these proposals could transform the financial remedies landscape.

Certainty and fairness must become the cornerstones of the approach to financial settlements.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: law commission, report

8 January 2025

Domestic Abuse and Economic Justice

The October 2024 Resolution Report ‘Domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings’ sheds a critical light on the intersection of domestic abuse and financial remedy proceedings in the UK. It highlights how economic abuse—a form of coercive control where abusers manipulate financial resources—can extend well beyond the end of a relationship. Victim-survivors often face continued abuse through delayed settlements, hidden assets, and non-compliance with court orders.

The Scale of the Problem

Resolution’s survey revealed that 80% of family law professionals believe that domestic abuse, specifically economic abuse, is insufficiently addressed in financial remedy proceedings. This issue is even more pronounced for unmarried families, where existing legal frameworks fail to offer adequate protection.

Victim-survivors shared harrowing accounts, such as being forced to continue paying for a jointly owned home they cannot access or facing adjourned hearings despite clear evidence of abuse. These experiences emphasise the urgent need for systemic change.

Recommendations for Reform

Resolution’s report calls for:

Strengthening procedural safeguards: Amending the Family Procedure Rules to ensure that domestic abuse considerations are embedded in case management.
Improved disclosure processes: Holding parties accountable for failing to provide full and frank disclosure early in negotiations or court proceedings.
Access to justice: Expanding legal aid availability for victim-survivors and reviewing financial thresholds that currently block access to representation.

Towards Cultural Change

Achieving meaningful reform requires a cultural shift among family law professionals. Training, clear guidelines, and a collaborative approach between the judiciary and practitioners can ensure that abuse is recognised and addressed effectively. The report’s recommendations aim to empower victim-survivors, promote fair outcomes, and ensure the justice system is no longer complicit in enabling ongoing abuse.

Domestic abuse doesn’t end with separation—and neither should the protections offered by the law.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: domestic abuse, resolution

3 January 2025

Arbitration Awards in Financial Remedies: Lessons from On v On [2024] EWFC 379

The case of On v On sheds light on the crossover of arbitration awards and court oversight in financial remedy proceedings. It highlights the continuing duty of full and frank disclosure, the importance of factual accuracy in arbitration, and the risks of non-compliance. The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties considering arbitration in divorce cases, especially regarding transparency and the court’s ability to intervene.

Case Overview

In this case, the parties, married for over 24 years, opted for arbitration to resolve their financial disputes. Following the arbitrator's decision, the wife challenged the award, citing fraudulent non-disclosure by the husband. She argued that his failure to disclose accurate business valuations and other material financial details undermined the fairness of the award.

The court agreed, setting aside the arbitration award and revisiting the financial arrangements. The case involved complex considerations, including substantial discrepancies in business valuations and contentious claims about financial misrepresentations.

Key Legal Principles

Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

The court reinforced the principle that the duty of disclosure extends beyond the arbitration hearing until the court approves the resulting order. Judge Booth ruled that this duty is continuous and includes the period between the arbitration award and its enforcement as a court order. The decision highlights that even arbitration does not shield parties from their disclosure obligations.

Standard for Setting Aside Awards

To challenge an arbitration award, the applicant must demonstrate material non-disclosure or procedural unfairness that would have altered the outcome. Here, the husband's misrepresentations about his company’s financial performance—disclosing projected losses when the business ultimately made significant profits—constituted material non-disclosure.

Court Oversight of Arbitration

While arbitration offers a private and binding mechanism, its outcomes are not immune to judicial scrutiny. The court may review the fairness of an award and adjust it where necessary to ensure compliance with the principles of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This decision underscores the court's role as the final arbiter in ensuring fairness.

Key Lessons from the Case

Transparency is Paramount

Parties entering arbitration must ensure complete and accurate disclosure of their financial circumstances. Misrepresentation, even if unintentional, can lead to significant delays, additional legal costs, and the potential setting aside of awards.

Court Supervision of Arbitration

This case demonstrates the importance of judicial oversight in family arbitration. Arbitration agreements may expedite resolution, but they cannot bypass the statutory principles governing financial remedies.

Costs and Risks of Misrepresentation

The financial consequences of non-compliance can be severe. In this case, the husband was found to have deliberately withheld information, resulting in a costly and protracted legal process.

Practical Considerations for Practitioners

Advise Clients on Disclosure: Clients must be aware of their continuing duty to disclose, even after an arbitration award is issued.
Understand the Risks: While arbitration can save time, it does not eliminate the need for transparency and procedural compliance.
Focus on Materiality: Challenges to awards must focus on material issues that would significantly alter the outcome, rather than minor discrepancies.

Conclusion

The judgment in On v On serves as a reminder that arbitration, while valuable, requires the same degree of rigour and transparency as court proceedings. For family law practitioners, the case underscores the importance of thorough preparation and honest disclosure when guiding clients through arbitration or financial remedy disputes. It also reaffirms the court’s role as a safeguard against unfair outcomes in matrimonial finance cases.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: arbitration, case law

2 January 2025

Prioritising Disability Needs in Divorce: Insights from V v V [2024] EWFC 380 (B)

Disability often adds a profound layer of complexity to divorce proceedings, as courts must balance fairness with the unique and often urgent needs of disabled parties. In V v V [2024] EWFC 380, the court faced this challenge head-on, deciding how to divide limited resources between a tetraplegic husband and a wife with two young children. The case underscores how the law adapts to prioritise disability needs in financial remedy disputes, using tools like Mesher orders and asset redistribution.

The Human and Legal Dilemma

Mr. V, rendered tetraplegic by a tragic accident, occupied the former matrimonial home (FMH), which had been adapted to meet his extensive care needs. Mrs. V, the primary caregiver for their two children, lived in rented accommodation, seeking a share of the FMH’s equity to rehouse herself and the children. With limited assets, the court had to balance two competing needs: the children’s welfare and Mr. V’s life-sustaining requirements.

How the Court Addressed Disability

The Adapted Home as a Necessity:
The FMH had been extensively modified to accommodate Mr. V’s disability, including specialised equipment and structural changes. The court recognised that selling the property would jeopardise his ability to live independently and receive the necessary care.

Judge Booth noted that the FMH was not just a home but a critical component of Mr. V’s care plan. Its retention was essential for his physical and emotional well-being, justifying the decision to prioritise his needs over immediate financial redistribution.

Mesher Order to Defer Sale:
The court applied a Mesher order, deferring the sale of the FMH until Mr. V no longer required it, such as upon his death or a transition to institutional care. This ensured his housing stability while preserving Mrs. V’s interest in the property for eventual realisation.
Adjusting Shares to Reflect Competing Needs:
Recognising Mrs. V’s delayed access to equity, the court awarded her 75% of the FMH’s future proceeds, leaving Mr. V with 25%. This adjustment balanced his current needs with her long-term financial security.

Key Principles from the Judgment

Disability as a Central Factor:
The court emphasised that disability needs often outweigh other considerations, such as achieving an immediate clean break. This aligns with previous rulings like Wagstaff v Wagstaff [1992] 1 WLR 320 and Mansfield v Mansfield [2011] EWCA Civ 1056, which affirmed the primacy of ensuring suitable housing and care for disabled parties.
Balancing Limited Resources:
With insufficient assets to fully meet both parties’ needs, the court carefully apportioned resources to achieve fairness over time rather than immediate equality.
Child Welfare in Context:
While child welfare is a primary consideration under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court concluded that Mr. V’s retention of the FMH did not compromise the children’s housing stability, as Mrs. V could continue renting suitable accommodation.

Lessons for Practitioners

Disability Impacts the Legal Considerations: Practitioners must emphasise the importance of disability-related needs when advising clients or making submissions to the court.
Mesher Orders as a Flexible Tool: This case reinforces the utility of deferred sale orders to accommodate unique circumstances while preserving financial equity.
Transparency in Needs Assessment: Both parties should provide detailed evidence of their needs, especially in cases involving disability or specialised care requirements.

Conclusion

V v V [2024] EWFC 380 (B) is a compelling example of how courts navigate the intersection of law, disability, and fairness in financial remedies. By prioritising Mr. V’s disability needs while safeguarding Mrs. V’s future financial interests, the judgment highlights the court’s commitment to achieving equity in complex and emotionally charged circumstances. For family law practitioners, the case serves as a poignant reminder of the adaptability of legal principles in the face of human challenges.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, disability

Older Posts ›

Navigating Maintenance Pending Suit and LSPOs: Lessons from HA v EN [2025] EWHC 48 (Fam)

A Case Worth Barking About: FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384

Promoting Constructive Solutions: Practicing Family Law Under Resolution’s Code of Practice

Divorce, Reconciliation, and the Court’s Discretion: Insights from HK v SS [2025] EWFC 5

Balancing Needs and Inherited Wealth: Lessons from ST v AR [2025] EWFC 4

A Litigant’s Guide to Financial Fairness

The Law Commission’s Vision for Certainty and Fairness

Domestic Abuse and Economic Justice

Arbitration Awards in Financial Remedies: Lessons from On v On [2024] EWFC 379

Prioritising Disability Needs in Divorce: Insights from V v V [2024] EWFC 380 (B)

Get in touch for your free consultation

Where innovation meets excellence

Information

York Office