Mahtani v Mahtani [2025] EWFC 35 (Fam) is a stark reminder of the serious consequences of non-attendance and non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. This case serves as yet another warning that attempting to evade scrutiny in divorce cases can lead to adverse inferences and financial penalties.
The Facts: A Husband’s Strategic Silence
In this case, the husband (H) repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, refused to engage with proceedings, and ultimately did not attend the final hearing. Despite multiple opportunities to provide evidence, he remained uncooperative. The wife (W), on the other hand, had complied with her disclosure obligations and pursued a fair division of assets.
Faced with H’s blatant non-participation, the court had little choice but to proceed in his absence and determine a fair outcome based on the available evidence—most of which was provided by W.
Key Legal Issues: Non-Attendance and Non-Disclosure
- The Court’s Approach to Non-Disclosure
- Non-disclosure remains one of the biggest obstacles in financial remedy cases, but courts have developed a clear approach: if a party refuses to disclose assets, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences.
- The judgment in Mahtani v Mahtani aligns with earlier decisions, including Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482, confirming that non-disclosure does not prevent the court from making findings on asset values and appropriate distribution.
- The burden of proof lies on the party alleging non-disclosure, but once a reasonable suspicion is raised, the non-disclosing party must disprove it—a burden H did not even attempt to meet.
- Non-Attendance: Proceeding in Absence
- H’s non-attendance at the final hearing was not enough to delay proceedings. The court proceeded on the basis of the evidence before it, emphasising that parties cannot derail litigation by refusing to engage.
- This echoes the approach in BG v BA [2015] EWFC 2, where Mostyn J held that “a party cannot frustrate the process by refusing to take part.”
- Adverse Inferences and Asset Estimation
- Given H’s non-disclosure and refusal to engage, the court took a robust approach, estimating his assets at the upper end of W’s valuation evidence.
- Courts have wide discretion to infer hidden assets if a party refuses to be transparent, as seen in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Thurrock v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435.
The Judgment: A Cautionary Tale
- W was awarded a significant share of the known assets, along with adverse cost consequences for H’s conduct.
- The judgment reinforces that non-compliant parties will not be rewarded for obstructive behaviour—instead, courts will take a pragmatic approach and ensure that justice is done based on available information.
Practical Takeaways for Family Lawyers
- Non-disclosure is a high-risk strategy—courts are prepared to draw negative inferences, often resulting in a more punitive financial settlement for the non-compliant party.
- Non-attendance will not delay judgment—a party who refuses to engage cannot expect the court to wait indefinitely.
- Practitioners should advise clients early on the duty of full and frank disclosure—failure to comply can lead to asset assumptions that may not be favourable.
- Courts are willing to make robust findings—a lack of disclosure does not mean an absence of judgment.
Conclusion
Mahtani v Mahtani sends a clear message: financial remedy proceedings will not be held hostage by uncooperative litigants. Those who fail to engage do so at their peril—because the court will press ahead, and the outcome is unlikely to favour the non-disclosing party.
For family lawyers, this case reinforces the importance of advising clients on compliance and disclosure obligations. Strategic silence will not win the day—transparency and cooperation remain the best path to a fair outcome.
