A financial remedy order in which a wife was awarded less than half of the couple’s total assets has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Despite being married for 23 years, the case found that this was not to have eroded the non-matrimonial status of the husband’s assets – this was on the grounds the majority of the assets belonged to him prior to the start of the marriage.
Since their separation in 2006, Mr and Mrs Hart had been involved in an ongoing legal battle over their respective settlements.
In 2015, their combined assets were assessed at a value of £9.4 million by the High Court, where it was acknowledged that a significant portion of this had been brought into the marriage by Mr Hart. Due to this, it was seen as appropriate that the 50/50 rule should not apply, with the judge awarding Mrs Hart £3.5 million.
This was objected by Mr Hart who brought a claim against this in 2016. On the basis that his former wife was being supported by and cohabiting with another man, he wished to have her share reduced.
However, the court accepted Mrs Hart’s argument and dismissed the claim. It found that her needs were not diminished simply because of her cohabitant; she wished to remain financially independent.
Having not received an equal share of the assets, Mrs Hart continued to contest that she had been unfairly treated. Wishing to challenge the settlement, she instructed Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth to take her claim to the appeal court.
Maintaining his original stance, Mr Hart responded by stating that the financial remedy order she had received was appropriate, particularly on the grounds that the couple had not grown their assets together.
On the 31 August, the judgement was handed down, ruling in favour of Mr Hart.
When the couple were married in 1987, Mr Hart brought assets worth £2.6 million to the marriage, as well as property. Moylan J found that in light of this, an equal split of the assets between the couple would be unfair to the husband. This was despite the length of the marriage.
Commenting from Irwin Mitchell was Nicola Walker who had represented Mrs Hart during the appeal.
She stated: Given that the couple were married for 23 years, the settlement should have been based on an equal sharing of the assets they created between them during this time’, she said. ‘Any difficulty in separating the matrimonial assets from the non-matrimonial, in this case, is entirely the result of Mr Hart’s refusal to provide relevant information which was available to him.’
Walker went on to highlight to potential for uncertainty in future cases which have similar facts, stating that the law has been left in a ‘state of flux’.
