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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.