Case No. FD19F00071

104.H rightly points out that W has run through an enormous sum of money. That includes: i)£757k received in December 2014 following the sale of the first London home; ii)£779k received between 2015-2016 on the redemption of the government bonds; iii)£3.18m being the sterling equivalent of the proceeds of sale of the Majorca villa received in December 2018-early 2019; iv)Very substantial transfers made by H to W’s account over the years but in particular up to July 2017 when save for the payment of S’s school fees and a small allowance and his share of the costs of the matrimonial home he ceased payments to W. 105.It is a little difficult for H to make complaint about the use of resources by W which he provided himself. This covers all the payments above except the Majorca property. H says that he knew from the outset that W was a big spender, yet he continued to provide her with the funds set out above. He has not asked her to account for them at any time and nor has he sought to limit her expenditure. He was happy to indulge her. 106.W claims that she lost £500k in the Majorcan shop venture. There are no documents that enable me to put any sort of figure on it but it is important to recall that H was fully aware of the venture and indeed invested in it himself. 107.LMS has been even more of a drain. According to her statement, H invested £354k in the business (inclusive of the £200k loan) and W has spent another £360k. It is quite impossible to assess the accuracy of these figures. Her director’s loan account shows a balance due to her of £591k. The accounts show that the accumulated losses of the business exceed £1m. It was clear from the evidence that W is clueless as to the financial operation of the business and relies on someone to tell her. She has just put in money whenever the manager has said it was needed. W’s estimate is that they have lost £600k in the business, but I think that this is likely to be a significant underestimate as the accounts and W’s own statement suggest a larger figure. 108.W has paid nearly £1m towards her own costs. Adding together that and the sums put by her towards her business activities produce a total of somewhere between £2-3m which explains much of what has gone. 109.There is a dispute between the parties about the extent of H’s financial provision for W and S since the end of 2014, when the proceeds of the first London home were split and H encountered choppy waters financially. In the 3 years before then, the schedule produced by W shows H making an average “allowance” of just under £500k pa. 110.Thereafter, in the period January 2015-July 2017 H’s payments averaged £130k pa and were then further reduced, being largely limited to payment of S’s school fees and allowance and the expenses of the home, initially in full but then reduced to half, plus £132k for W (a figure which it is not clear to me is agreed or disputed). 111.I set out these figures not to castigate H for the reduced level of support but to explain to a significant extent how the money set out in paragraph 104 has been utilised. I do not think that W has made any proper attempt to limit her expenditure but the extent of gratuitous overspend is substantially overstated by H. 112.H says that I should add back a significant element of the money that W has received and spent. Whilst I regard her expenditure and use of funds as irresponsible I need to be very cautious before adding back money which is no longer available when I am making a needs-based award. I must also bear in mind that the bulk of the money has gone on either costs or business ventures of which H was fully aware and participated in at the outset. He knew she was extravagant when he married her. To use the words of Moor J in MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627, a spouse must take his or her partner as he or she finds them. I regard some of the expenditure as irresponsible but not “wanton dissipation of assets” to use the phrase found in Norris v Norris [2003]1 FLR 1142. 113.In determining that W’s use of funds should not attract an add back I must also bear in mind that H’s expenditure has not been subject to the same scrutiny as that of W, but I do observe that he has invested some £2.6m into a top-end Russian restaurant in London. That money seems largely to have gone. Bad investment decisions are not solely taken by W. I have no doubt that both H’s restaurant and W’s medical beautician business have also been very adversely affected by the pandemic and subsequent lockdown. They can hardly be blamed for that.