At first glance, DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B) appears to be a straightforward financial remedy case—a 19-year marriage, an agreed equal division of assets, and no significant conduct arguments. But beneath the surface, this case highlights several key issues for family law practitioners:

• The staggering cost of litigation—a combined £1.3 million in legal fees.
• The consequences of inefficient case management, particularly non-compliance with the Efficiency Statement.
• The continued judicial push for greater transparency, with the judgment being published despite objections.

1. The £1.3 Million Legal Bill: A Case That Should Have Settled Earlier

The headline figure? £1.3 million spent on legal fees.

• The wife (W) spent £566,289 on the financial remedy proceedings and an additional £220,148 on private law children proceedings.
• The husband (H) spent £378,611 on the financial remedy case and £115,703 on the children proceedings.

This raises an important question: Why did a case with no major disputes over legal principles end up costing so much?

Both parties agreed from the outset that:
The assets should be divided equally.
There was no need for a maintenance claim—it would be a clean break case.
The assets were sufficient to meet both parties’ needs.

The disagreement? How to calculate the final asset pool and who should pay whom.

2. The Efficiency Statement Breach: Non-Compliance and the Court’s Frustration

The judgment makes clear that the parties failed to properly comply with the Efficiency Statement (11 January 2022), particularly regarding the Chronology.

• The applicant (W) failed to produce a neutral composite Chronology in line with paragraph 21(c) of the Efficiency Statement.
• Instead, the court was presented with two competing versions, which wasted time and resources.
• Recorder Allen KC explicitly referenced Peel J’s warning in GA v EL [2024] that such breaches are "wholly unacceptable."

Why does this matter? Because courts are increasingly focused on efficient case management. Non-compliance with procedural rules can lead to judicial criticism, wasted costs, and delays.

3. Conduct: When Bad Behaviour Doesn’t Affect the Award

W presented evidence that H had engaged in abusive and offensive conduct post-separation, including sending misogynistic and threatening messages.

• H’s own barrister admitted his behaviour was “wholly unacceptable.”
• W’s team tried to use this to frame the case, even though they never formally pleaded conduct as a factor.

But did it impact the financial award? No.

The court ruled that bad behaviour alone is not enough to adjust the financial split unless:
It is of a "highly exceptional nature" (N v J [2024] EWFC 184).
There is an identifiable financial consequence (Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2024] 1 FLR 937).

Since W could not prove a financial link, the court ignored H’s misconduct in the final asset division.

4. Transparency: Why This Judgment Was Published Despite Objections

H objected to publication, arguing that:
There were no novel legal points in the judgment.
There was no wider public interest in the case.
The children’s privacy could be affected.

W did not oppose publication, provided that the judgment was fully anonymised.

The Court’s Decision: Publish It.

Recorder Allen KC applied the balancing test from Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593, weighing:

The public interest in open justice (ECHR Article 10).

The privacy rights of the family (ECHR Article 8).

Ultimately, the court ruled that:

• There is a presumption in favour of publication, even where no legal precedent is set.
• Public accountability matters in financial remedy cases, particularly where litigation conduct is an issue.
• The judgment should be fully anonymised, but the public has a right to see how financial disputes are resolved.

This aligns with the 2024 Transparency Practice Guidance, which encourages greater publication of financial remedy judgments.

5. Final Financial Outcome: The Court’s Decision

After lengthy disputes over asset valuation, tax liabilities, and loan repayments, the court ruled:

• H to pay W a lump sum of £510,000 (far lower than her £780,000 claim but higher than his £60,000 offer).
• The couple’s £13.8 million in assets to be split equally.
• A contested loan to be subject to “Wells sharing”, meaning W would get a share only if it was repaid.
• H’s tax liabilities were NOT deducted from the asset pool, as the court was unconvinced he would actually pay them.
• Both parents to contribute £200,000 each to the children’s education fund.
• Child maintenance of £7,500 per year per child, replacing a previous CMS order.

Final Thoughts: A Case Study in High-Conflict Divorce Litigation

At its core, DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B) is a cautionary tale about the cost of financial disputes, inefficiency in litigation, and the limits of conduct arguments.

For family lawyers, the key lessons are:

• Early settlement is crucial—protracted disputes over asset valuation can be ruinously expensive.
• Procedural compliance matters—courts expect efficiency, and failure to comply can waste costs and time.
• Conduct rarely affects financial awards—without a financial impact, even extreme behaviour may be ignored.
• Transparency is here to stay—clients must expect their financial disputes to be public, unless they have strong reasons to argue otherwise.

With £1.3 million spent in legal fees, this case proves that even “straightforward” financial disputes can become complex, high-stakes battles. Practitioners should take note—and advise their clients accordingly.