Case No. FD19F00071

each]. 116.I exclude the properties in Russia respectively occupied by H’s mother (but held in H’s name) and W’s sister (previously held in W’s name). Neither property is immediately available and both have very modest values. 117.W has a surplus of other assets over liabilities after paying her outstanding costs of £95k. Thus I take W’s assets as being £2.66m. 118.I do not attribute a fixed value to W’s jewellery or handbag collection or the household chattels. W has jewellery which has been valued at approximately £260k and a collection of handbags which H assesses, perhaps rightly, at around £80k. Notwithstanding her financial difficulties W thought it was appropriate to buy herself a ring in February 2020 for €17k and a few months later bought herself a Rolex watch for €38k, which in the witness box for the first time she said was refunded to her by an admirer who wanted to make a present. 119.I accept that these are realisable assets but in a case of this nature, I do not regard it as reasonable to say that W’s needs should be met in that way. I can however bear them in mind to the extent of having the comfort that if W cannot live within the budget that I notionally provide she has it as a resource to which she can turn. 120.H has his share of the matrimonial home [£2.57m] and I include the Cyprus property as an asset available to him. His explanation of placing it in the name of his son to help him obtain a Cypriot passport when he had already obtained one as his father’s dependent was unconvincing. Further, H provided all the funds for the purchase at the time that the financial proceedings were ongoing and it is hard to see how the transaction might not be set aside if that relief was sought. Its net value is taken at