In X v Y [2025] EWHC 727 (Fam), the Family Division of the High Court was asked to revisit a financial remedy order after a final judgment—but before the order was perfected—because of a significant change in circumstances: the death of the husband’s father, leaving a sizeable inheritance.

The decision is a rich case study in the limits of post-judgment variation, the principles of finality, and how the courts deal with the impact of newly realised wealth after a financial remedy determination. Although this wasn’t a classic Barder application (where a party dies), it touches on similar principles—namely, whether a major event shortly after judgment should allow the court to reopen and revise its decision.

Background

In December 2023, HHJ Spinks delivered a reserved judgment after a three-day final hearing. He awarded the husband 62.5% of the net proceeds of the former matrimonial home due to his significantly lower earning capacity and housing needs, less a modest adjustment.

Then, just three weeks later, the husband’s father died—leaving the husband an estimated interest worth over £1 million, held in trust. The wife made a so-called Barrell application to reopen the judgment before the order was sealed, arguing that fairness now required a more equal division.

The Legal Framework: Barrell Applications and the Finality Principle

The court reaffirmed the legal tests laid down in:

• In the matter of L and B [2013] UKSC 8 and
• AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16

These confirm that:

1. Courts have discretion to alter a judgment before the final order is perfected.
2. The finality principle is important—particularly in financial remedy cases.
3. Applications based on new evidence must meet a high threshold, including a test of due diligence.
4. Courts must weigh these factors against the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.

Judge Spinks was found to have correctly applied the law—especially by asking whether the new evidence justified reopening a carefully balanced judgment after a full trial.

The Appeal: Was the Inheritance Enough to Justify Reopening?

The wife argued that:

• The husband’s inheritance substantially altered his financial needs.
• She should not be left with a lesser share of the matrimonial home now that the husband had future security.
• The new financial information wasn’t fully considered.

However, the court found:

• The inheritance was uncertain, tied up in a trust and not immediately accessible.
• The judge had already considered the likelihood of future family support.
• A retrial would incur significant delay, cost, and stress.
• The husband's trust interest, while valuable, did not clearly eliminate his current financial need.

Ultimately, Mr Justice Trowell upheld the original decision: finality and judicial discretion prevailed.

Key Practice Points for Family Lawyers

1. The death of a relative is not enough on its own to reopen a financial order.
   If the person who dies is not a party to the proceedings, and their estate is held in trust or subject to delay, the impact may be too speculative.
2. Inheritance prospects are not certainty.
   The court recognised that even a significant inheritance may not be realised in time to affect current needs.
3. The ‘finality principle’ is weighty—especially post-judgment.
   Even before an order is sealed, courts are reluctant to unwind a carefully balanced decision unless clear injustice can be shown.
4. Procedural fairness is key.
   The judge’s approach was upheld partly because both parties agreed the matter could be dealt with on paper, and there was no application for more time despite late-stage disclosures.
5. Be cautious with tactical applications post-judgment.
   Clients who regret the outcome of a financial remedy hearing must show more than just a change in fortune to succeed on appeal.

Final Thoughts

X v Y is a cautionary tale: inheritance issues—especially post-trial—must be handled with extreme care. It shows how even substantial post-judgment developments may fall short of justifying a revision of the order.

For family law practitioners, the case is a reminder to:

• Anticipate and explore inheritance issues during litigation;
• Frame any post-judgment challenge within strict legal boundaries; and
• Uphold the client’s expectations around finality and fairness.

If your client is considering challenging a financial remedy outcome due to a death or inheritance, make sure the evidence is strong, the timing is justified, and the proposed change truly meets the Barrell threshold.