The ED v OF [2024] EWFC 297 case sheds light on how assets like music catalogues and private companies are valued and divided during financial remedy proceedings in the UK, offering significant lessons for high-net-worth and creative industry divorces.

Background: A Complex Asset Portfolio

This case involved a well-known musician and producer, whose assets included a valuable music catalogue, multiple companies (such as a recording studio and publishing companies), and various investments. The couple had a 16-year marriage and two children. Central to the dispute was the valuation and division of the husband’s music-related assets, particularly the catalogue, which was considered a shared matrimonial asset despite its growth stemming largely from the husband’s work.

How the Court Approached Valuation of Creative Assets

Valuing a music catalogue, especially one tied to ongoing projects and business interests, is complex. The Court referenced Versteegh v Versteegh and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane to emphasise that valuations of private companies and intellectual property are inherently fragile and volatile. These valuations are often based on future projections of income, making precise accounting difficult. The Court ultimately relied on a single joint expert’s Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuation, though it acknowledged the valuation’s fragility due to changing market and industry factors.

Additionally, the Court considered past sale offers but ruled them unreliable for assessing current value, focusing instead on expert valuations and realistic adjustments based on industry benchmarks.

Key Takeaways for Family Law Practitioners

1. Intellectual Property and Matrimonial Assets: While the husband created much of the music catalogue’s value, the Court deemed it a matrimonial asset, demonstrating that creative and business contributions during marriage are typically shared regardless of whose name appears on legal titles.
2. Handling Volatile Assets: Valuing intangible assets requires careful balancing. In cases where assets are volatile, practitioners should prepare clients for realistic expectations, as courts will use “broad evaluative” methods rather than precise calculations, focusing on fairness over accuracy.
3. Equal Division and Clean Breaks: The Court leaned toward a clean break, ordering the husband to either buy out the wife’s share of the catalogue or put it up for sale if he couldn’t raise the funds. This approach underscores the importance of securing financial independence for both parties post-divorce, particularly when dealing with complex business interests.
4. Ongoing Income and Family Needs: The Court awarded the wife a share of the income from existing assets, including a company-related income stream, while also confirming her role in the family home. By doing so, the Court balanced the couple’s financial future and stability while addressing the wife’s housing and income needs.

Conclusion

The ED v OF judgment underscores the challenges in valuing creative assets and business interests in divorce, especially when asset volatility and artistic contributions play significant roles. For family law practitioners, this case serves as a reminder to carefully evaluate creative assets and advise clients about realistic valuation expectations, the importance of expert valuations, and preparing for structured settlements that provide financial security for both parties.

The case highlights the growing importance of balancing creativity, business interests, and equitable outcomes in family law, particularly for high-profile or high-value creative cases.

Resources

Key case references from the report in ED v OF [2024] EWFC 297 related to valuing business and creative assets:

1. Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050
   • Discusses the challenges of valuing private businesses and the limitations of financial certainty in court decisions.
2. H v H [2008] 2 FLR 2092
   • Moylan LJ notes the fragility of business valuations and the difficulties in applying exact financial values to private company shares.
3. Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
   • Highlights the variable nature of asset valuations and the potential for divergent expert opinions.
4. Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476, [2002] 2 FLR 97
   • Establishes the concept of “Wells sharing,” a method to balance asset volatility by dividing the asset in specie.
5. Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866
   • Reinforces the need for a balanced approach in allocating private business interests, emphasising broad evaluations over precise accounting.