£ 120,479
£25,764,49494.It is agreed that the Wife will assign the money owed to her by DEF Inc to the Husband, such that her assets should be taken as being £25,644,015. On this basis, she is entitled to a lump sum of £44,355,985. I would expect it to be paid within three months, with a part of it payable within one month. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to this, I will determine it on paper.95.I now turn to the thorny topic of the Z Street Property. Both parties seek a transfer of the property to their sole name. In one sense, both their cases can be criticised. At the time the case commenced, the Wife was arguing that her main base should be in London, which would have made ownership of the Z Street Property, on the basis of very limited occupation, slightly surprising. On the other hand, the Husband was seeking a transfer to him of the Z Street Property on the basis he was also going to keep the extremely valuable Property J, and the property on the private island, even if he did later say he would sell the latter. His justification for keeping the Z Street Property on the basis of the study is wafer thin. Equally, he argued that the Wife could have Property W but so could he, given his ownership of Property J. 96.I have decided that the only way to deal with this is to place the property on the market for sale in two months’ time, on the basis that the equity will then be divided equally. Prior to that happening, however, each party is entitled to send to the other one sealed bid to acquire the property. The bids must be delivered to the other’s solicitors by 4pm London time on 14 April 2022. The party making the higher bid will keep the property and will have to pay half the value of the offer, less notional costs of sale at 3%, to the other, within one month thereafter. This will decide who really wants this property. I must, however, guard against one party taking a gamble and offering a ridiculously low price on the basis that he or she does not believe the other will bid. In consequence, I place a floor on the bids of $19 million. Any bid below that will not be binding on the other party. 97.There will be no order as to costs, other than in relation to the Side Deed. Miss Bangay made some submissions about an alleged failure to negotiate and a disparity in costs. I cannot possibly adjudicate on the former point given the rule that prevents
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The breakdown of the marriage
- The respective Forms E
- The evidence before me
- The position of the PE company
- Section 25 statements
- The valuation of DEF Inc and the other business
- Statement of Issues
- Open proposals
- The Tax enquiry
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- The Assets Schedule
- £ 3,551,912
- The law I have to apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- Hart
- my emphasis)
- Juffali v Juffali
- The evidence I heard
- My assessment of the assets
- The appropriate deduction for tax liabilities in relation to the enquiry by the tax authority of Country X
- Two relatively small loans made by JR’s estate and a trust belonging to KR to the IR Holding Trust
- The resulting overall figure
- The Pre-Nuptial Agreement
- Radmacher v Granatino
- The DEF Inc Side Deed
- My conclusions as to non-matrimonial property
- XW v XH
- Wells v Wells
- The structure of the award
- £ 120,479
- Calderbank
