Case No. EWFC-136

66.Before deciding on the correct award, I must quantify the assets. I realise that this is not quite as important now that I have decided against sharing but it is still a necessary exercise to perform in the overall section 25 exercise. I make it clear that I exclude completely the inherited/gifted assets that came from the respective families. In the Wife’s case, this is £219,298 for her interest in the Brittany property occupied by her parents. In the Husband’s case, this is £1,556,411, namely interests in five separate French properties plus some inherited funds. I recognise that there may be more to come, particularly on the Wife’s side, but this is certainly not a case where such assets should be taken into account as part of the respective needs of each party. Indeed, neither counsel has suggested I should do so.67.The Wife has liquid assets of £4,120,574. I take her bank accounts at their latest balances even though this may have reduced her outstanding costs somewhat. Overall, any change would be de minimis. In addition, she has pension assets of £255,796. I include her Malakoff Humanis pension, generated during her employment with C Group, at £229,784. Overall, this means she has assets of £4,376,370. 68.The Husband claims matrimonial assets of only £14,909,989 as against a figure of £21,231,269 asserted on behalf of the Wife. I resolve the disputes as follows:-(a)For these purposes, I reject the suggestion that post-separation bonuses or compensation should be treated differently. I am not dividing up these assets in accordance with sharing so it really does not matter where on the schedule they are placed. Moreover, there has been no significant delay in getting this case to court.(b)I reject the reduction of 30% on the proceeds of sale of his B Bank stock. This Husband has been incredibly successful in business. He is very careful with his money. He will do everything in his power to avoid any reclaim by the Bank and the chances of one being successfully obtained are so low that it should be ignored. (c)I accept his figure for the proceeds of sale of his boat. This reduces the Wife’s figure by £87,719.(d)I completely reject his contention that I should deduct future cash calls on his CCap, OCap and NCap by treating them as liabilities. First, when invested, these amounts will increase the value of the investment. Second, he is a very astute financier. He has only recently invested in NCap. It was his decision to do so. He must take on the financial responsibility that goes with having done so.(e)I propose to allow the tax on remittance of the Julius Baer offshore capital in the sum of (£1,800,478) in full. For these purposes, I should compare like with like. I need to know the true net position of each party. I do, however, proceed on the basis that the ability to defer/avoid this tax is a significant advantage to this Husband. (f)I ignore the potential past tax on past US earnings, claimed in the sum of £516,368. There is absolutely no evidence of HMRC seeking this money. To do so, they have to establish dishonesty and the period in which they can do so is limited. (g)Turning to the Husband’s unvested B Bank shares, I reject his contention that I should ignore them all on the basis that he may lose them if he sets up in competition to the Bank after retirement. First, many of the shares will have vested by then. Second, if he does lose them, it will be because of a conscious decision that he is better off doing so than retaining them, because he believes he will earn more in his new business than he will lose.(h)Finally, I take the long-term investments in CCap, OCap and NCap at their current values. I do, of course, accept that they will not be received for a considerable period of time. For example, CCap will not mature until somewhere between 2027 and 2029. I will therefore distinguish these assets from the liquid assets but they are included at their current values. Having said that, the Husband tells me that the CCap investment has fallen 20% due to falls in the market since it was last valued. I accept that evidence and reduce the figure to £1,104,739, a reduction of £276,184.69.The cumulative effect of these findings is that the Husband’s assets reduce from the Wife’s figure of £21,231,269 to £19,979,387. Of this, £13,985,865 is liquid. The figure increases to £16,695,366 if the illiquid assets are included but the value of his pensions excluded. The total liquid assets is £18,110,752 including the sum of £4,313,000 held in the joint accounts. 70.There are also the pensions. The Husband’s pensions have a combined value of £3,284,021. I accept there will be some tax to deduct from this due to the fact that the totals exceed the Life Time Allowance. Added to the Wife’s pensions worth £255,796, the total pension assets are £3,539,817.71.Overall, the total assets are:-(a)Wife liquid £ 4,120,574(b)Husband liquid £13,985,865(c)Husband illiquid £ 2,709,502(d)Wife pensions £ 255,796(e)Husband pensions