Case No. NP20D02617

58.W’s case on this is unsustainable. Nearly all the valuable assets that H owns were purchased before the parties began to cohabit. During the marriage he purchased two relatively modest investment properties, one of which was funded by his share of his mother’s estate and the other largely if not entirely from pre-existing savings. 59.W’s assertion that because she moved into H’s property and resided in it as the matrimonial home for some of the period between 2012-2020 and because she visited his holiday home in France for short stays between 1-3 times a year she is entitled to share in the value of those assets, is in my judgment mistaken. She does not suggest that she made any direct or financial contribution to either property.60.There is no evidence of H’s assets increasing in value during their marriage; indeed, the sums spent on costs in these proceedings which have largely been funded by H would have been likely to eliminate any increase in value. 61.The one asset that can be shown to have increased in value is the capital value of H’s pension. W will share in that growth by way of pension share.62.On the other hand, W’s capital position has undoubtedly improved as a result of the marriage. H has provided her with the funds to redeem the mortgage and she has her investment property which is now worth £110,000 mortgage free which she did not have before, albeit that she paid the deposit of some £35,000 from her own resources. Of course, H spent weekends at that property too and so on W’s argument H should logically be entitled to a sharing interest in them.63.I therefore reject W’s sharing claim but insofar as she does have a claim, it is clear that it would be outweighed in value by her needs-based claim.