Case No. EWFC-155

1.This case concerns the financial remedies proceedings arising out of the divorce between Ms TM (to whom I shall refer as “the wife”) and Mr KM (to whom I shall refer as “the husband”). 2.The case proceeded to a final hearing over five days on 28th, 29th & 30th November and 1st & 2nd December 2022.3.Both parties appeared before me by Counsel: Mr Simon Calhaem for the wife, instructed by Forsters LLP, Solicitors, and Ms Marina Faggionato, instructed by Withers LLP, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the husband. Both parties have been represented by legal teams at a first class level, and both Counsel have presented their respective cases with assiduous hard work and great skill and persuasiveness.4.This has, though, come at a high cost. The wife has incurred, in the course of these proceedings, a total of £419,894 in legal costs and the husband a total of £375,337. It is sad to note that nearly £800,000 of family money has been spent on lawyers in a case which was, from the position of an objective observer, readily settleable. As ever, it is difficult (indeed impossible) for the trial judge, who must remain unaware of the without prejudice negotiating positions and the course of the FDR, to make any meaningful assessment of why no compromise was ever reached.5.The court was presented with an electronic bundle running to 713 pages and this was later joined by a second bundle of email exchanges running to 704 pages. A number of additional documents have been produced in the course of the final hearing. Included amongst these documents were:-(i)A collection of applications and court orders.(ii)Material from the wife including her Form E dated 12th January 2022, her answers to questionnaire dated 14th March 2022 and her narrative section 25 statement dated 7th September 2022.(iii)Material from the husband including his Form E dated 9th December 2021, his answers to questionnaire dated 7th March 2022 and his narrative section 25 statement dated 2nd September 2022.(iv)Material from various SJEs, in particular on the issue of the value of the Massachusetts property from Mr Tom Cullen and Ms Lisa Annunziata, two real estate appraisers based near the property.(v)Properly completed ES1 and ES2 documents.(vi)Selected correspondence and disclosure material.6.I have also heard oral evidence from the wife and the husband (in attendance at court) and from Mr Cullen and Ms Annunziata (by remote video via CVP), all subjected to appropriate cross-examination.7.I have also had the benefit of full submissions from each counsel in their respective opening notes and their closing partly written and partly oral submissions.8.This was a trial conducted before me in a largely civil manner by both sides; but I want to make this comment about a number of remarks in the husband’s written presentation which I felt crossed the line into the territory of personal pejorative remarks about the wife and were misplaced, unnecessary and unhelpful. Parties signing statements and Solicitors drafting statements should pay proper heed to the remarks of Peel J in WH v HC [2022] EWFC 22: “Parties, and their legal advisers, may be under the impression that to describe the other party in pejorative terms, and seek to paint an unfavourable picture, will assist their case. It is high time that parties and their lawyers disabuse themselves of this erroneous notion. Judges will deal with relevant evidence, and will not base decisions on alleged moral turpitude.”