Case No. FD19F00071
Family Court

Case No. FD19F00071

Fecha: 04-Feb-2021

£320k

in addition to the transfer of the matrimonial home. 138.I am satisfied that the making an order of this size does not impinge upon H’s ability properly to meet his own needs. Unaffordability has not been part of his case. Making this transfer and payment is well within his ability. 139.It will take time to sell the matrimonial home. The expert evidence was that it would appeal to an international clientele and the pandemic has frozen that market. It would be highly optimistic to think that it will sell before next year. 140.I require H to pay the service charge and, if separate, the buildings insurance until 1 September 2022 or earlier sale. I am not going to reinstate a requirement to pay further spousal payments as I am making no deduction from the award to represent the balances held by W in her accounts. Upon sale there will be a clean break. 141.The meeting of S’s needs is not straightforward. H has said that he will comply and pay whatever sum I regard as reasonable without the need for an order. I do not intend to suggest that he would not do so, but I do have to bear in mind that there are not assets in this country that W can have recourse to in the event of any default. 142.H responsibly accepts his liability to pay the school fees for her two remaining terms and thereafter to pay for her tuition and living expenses at university. I order that in addition he pay periodical payments to S in the sum of £24k pa (as he has offered) of which 50% shall be paid direct to S and the balance to W from the time that S starts at university. 143.Russian Proceedings: H is still intending to pursue the retrial within the Russian proceedings. As I am making a needs-based award, it is necessary for me to direct that H must provide an indemnity and/or pay a lump sum equal to the amount of any award against W that he obtains in Russia. It would plainly not be appropriate for a needs-based award to be reduced by H’s pursuit for the return of the investors visa loan. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to leave H with the ability to claim for the monies loaned to W’s businesses.