The court considered what to do when it was said that a party to ancillary relief proceedings on divorce had failed to make proper disclosure of his assets. H appealed against an award of a capital sum in such proceedimngs.
Held:
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge’s decision was wrong in that he had allowed fresh evidence to be admitted, even with the consent of ocunsel, after oral evidence had been concluded; the suggestion of capitalisation of the proposed payment had not come from the parties, and the court had drawn inferences as to the husband’s wealth which were neither properly drawn nor reasonable. A retrial was ordered.
Mostyn J set out the princoiples as follows: ‘where the court is satisfied that the disclosure given by one party has been materially deficient then:
i) The Court is duty bound to consider by the process of drawing adverse inferences whether funds have been hidden.
ii) But such inferences must be properly drawn and reasonable. It would be wrong to draw inferences that a party has assets which, on an assessment of the evidence, the Court is satisfied he has not got.
iii) If the Court concludes that funds have been hidden then it should attempt a realistic and reasonable quantification of those funds, even in the broadest terms.
iv) In making its judgment as to quantification the Court will first look to direct evidence such as documentation and observations made by the other party.
v) The Court will then look to the scale of business activities and at lifestyle.
vi) Vague evidence of reputation or the opinions or beliefs of third parties is inadmissible in the exercise.
vii) The Al-Khatib v Masry technique of concluding that the non-discloser must have assets of at least twice what the Claimant is seeking should not be used as the sole metric of quantification.
viii) The Court must be astute to ensure that a non-discloser should not be able to procure a result from his non-disclosure better than that which would be ordered if the truth were told. If the result is an order that is unfair to the non-discloser it is better that than that the Court should be drawn into making an order that is unfair to the Claimant.’
It would be dangerous to rely on: ‘an inevitable inference was that that the husband’s wealth, whatever it may be, was such that, were he to make the full and frank disclosure which he ought to but had not made, the court applying White v White would award the wife even more than she was asking for. A frank revelation of the truth would be even more damaging to the husband than the adverse inferences to be drawn from his non-disclosure. Put another way, the truth would be more painful to him than the consequences of non-disclosure ‘
Judges:
Mostyn J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – J-P C v J-A F FD 1955
Sachs J considered the consequences of the revelation of a failure by a party to ancillary relief proceedings to meet his disclosure obligations: ‘In cases of this kind, where the duty of disclosure comes to lie on a husband; where a husband has – . .
Cited – Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo CA 19-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to how a Family Division judge might decide whether or not to publish an ancillary relief judgment at the conclusion of a trial during which one of the parties conspired to present a perjured case. H and family members had . .
Cited – Al-Khatib v Masry FD 2002
The court heard an application for an ancillary relief order in divorce proceedings.
Held: General reputation prevailing in the community, and the mere opinions, inferences or beliefs of witnesses, are inadmissible in proof of material facts. . .
Cited – Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) HL 1985
The parties had negotiated through solicitors a compromise of ancillary relief claims on their divorce. They agreed that the house should be transferred to the wife in consideration of her release of all other financial claims. The wife however . .
Cited – FZ v SZ and Others (ancillary relief: conduct: valuations) FD 5-Jul-2010
The court heard an application for ancillary relief and variation of a post nuptial settlement. Each party made allegations of misconduct against the other, and the litigation had been bitter and protracted. W had obtained copies of H’s private . .
Cited – White v White HL 26-Oct-2000
The couple going through the divorce each had substantial farms and wished to continue farming. It had been a long marriage.
Held: Where a division of the assets of a family would satisfy the reasonable needs of either party on an ancillary . .
Cited – Pearce v Pearce CA 28-Jul-2003
The financial claims on divorce had been settled by a compromise recorded in a court order. The order included periodical payments to the former wife. After she suffered financial losses, she sought an increase, and the former husband sought an . .
Cited – Sherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
Cited – Sherrington and Another v Sherrington CA 29-Dec-2006
The deceased had after remarriage made a will which excluded from benefit entirely his first wife and children by her. Claims under the 1975 Act were put to one side while the court decided on the validity of the will, but then dismissed. The court . .
Cited – In re AR (A Child: Relocation) FD 10-Jun-2010
Both parents had parental responsibility. The French mother wished to return to live in France and to take the five year old child with her, applying to court for the appropriate order.
Held: The court pointed to the real difficulties always . .
Cited – AA v NA (Appeal: Fact-Finding) FD 10-Jun-2010
Mostyn J discussed the situations where an appellate court might set aside factual findings by a first instance judge: ‘In my opinion an appellate court would only be able to say that a fact-finder has plainly got the wrong answer if:
(i) His . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.449879