Case No. RS20D03594

sharing of the proceeds of the sale of DEF Inc. The dispute that arose over the Side Deed shows just how much scope such an arrangement would give for further dispute. I have taken the current value of DEF Inc, as assessed by Mr I, fully into account. The fact that it was financed from non-matrimonial assets is taken into account by the departure from equality for the non-matrimonial element. Any further increase in value from now to the date of sale will not be a fruit of the matrimonial partnership. Most importantly, this case cries out for a complete clean break now.92.It is, however, important that I should just perform one final calculation to ensure that my award covers the needs of the Wife. I am absolutely clear that it does. I am of the view that she should have three properties. I say nothing as to the likely outcome of the dispute as to Child D’s schooling but, on a broad brush basis, she is entitled to a property in London regardless of where the children are living. The property in West London at £10,902,800 fits that bill. She is entitled to a property in City Y. For this purposes, I allocated a further sum of £10 million just because that is the value of the Z Street Property. Finally, she is entitled to a home in the country, either near their schools if the children are here or in Country X, if they are there. It does not need to be as grand as Property J or even the country estate she made an offer to purchase. I attribute £5 million for such a purchase, including the costs of purchase. This would give her a total housing need of £25 million. On the basis of an award of £70 million, she would have £45 million for a Duxbury fund. This would not quite provide her with her budget figure of £1,855,000 per annum, which would have needed £48.5 million, but it would get sufficiently close to cover her reasonable needs, very generously assessed.