In VTY v GDB [2025] EWFC 110 (B), Recorder Rhys Taylor faced one of the more unusual and unsettling examples of non-disclosure in recent family law decisions. At the heart of the case was not just the usual dispute over hidden assets, but the involvement of litigation in a foreign court that appeared to undermine the very basis of the English proceedings.

The result is a fascinating insight into the limits of judicial intervention when non-disclosure borders on litigation fraud but doesn't quite cross the evidential line.

The Background: "The Farm" and a Foreign Twist

During the original financial remedy proceedings, the husband (H) agreed that a valuable property—referred to as The Farm—was held on trust for him. It was included in the matrimonial asset base.

But post-settlement, H engaged in litigation in a foreign jurisdiction (Country X) that purported to challenge this very assumption. The result? A judgment from a court abroad that he attempted to use to say, effectively, “I no longer own that asset.”

The wife (W), understandably, argued this was a case of deliberate material non-disclosure—that the foreign litigation had been manipulated, or even manufactured, to create a paper trail separating H from his declared asset.

The Suspicion — But Not the Finding

Recorder Taylor was clearly sceptical. The judgment references:

• Procedural irregularities in the foreign case;
• The appearance that the husband may have been controlling both sides of the litigation;
• An absence of proper notice to the wife;
• Timing that raised eyebrows, coinciding with enforcement activity in England.

And yet, at paragraph 119, the judge declined to go all the way:

“Whilst I recognise all of the well-made points... I am not prepared to say that the judgment of a foreign court should not be recognised on the grounds that it has been obtained by fraud. There are too many imponderables at play, notwithstanding my suspicions.”

This is the core of the legal tension: the English court clearly felt the foreign proceedings were at least questionable, but it stopped short of declaring them fraudulent. In family law, suspicion is not enough. Proof remains paramount—even where red flags abound.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates a rare but increasingly relevant challenge in modern family litigation: the use (or misuse) of foreign legal systems to cloud beneficial ownership or frustrate enforcement.

What makes VTY v GDB so valuable for practitioners is that it shows the court's:

• Willingness to scrutinise foreign judgments, especially where they emerge post-order;
• Careful adherence to the principle that fraud must be clearly established—not merely inferred;
• Recognition of the strategic use of litigation abroad, even when it stops short of formal condemnation.

Practical Pointers for Lawyers

• Be alert to developments abroad. If a party engages in litigation that appears to unwind or contradict earlier disclosures, question the timing and intent.
• A foreign judgment is not immune to challenge—but overturning it on fraud grounds is a high bar.
• Build the evidential picture carefully. Courts will not declare fraud lightly, even if they share your suspicions.
• Even if the foreign judgment stands, the English court still has wide discretion to apportion assets as between the parties, particularly in ‘needs’ cases, as it did here.

Final Thought

VTY v GDB is a masterclass in judicial restraint. The court clearly saw through the smoke but resisted declaring a fire without hard proof. For family lawyers, the message is clear: suspicion alone is not enough—but it’s often the start of a story the court is willing to hear.