Case No. RS20D03594

[2019] EWCA Civ 2262). Whilst I understand the point she makes, I intend to approach the matter on both this basis and by conducting a broader Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306 evaluation. 89.One possible approach is to say that the sum of $170 million received by the Husband in 2007 was, in reality, non-matrimonial as being, in effect, the fruits of JR’s work. If the other money received by the Husband is treated as matrimonial, namely c. $90 million following JR’s death and c. $330 million after the sale a few years ago, the proportion of the total receipts that would be non-matrimonial would be c. $170 million out of c. $600 million or c. 30%. If this percentage is deducted from the assets figure of c. £190 million, the non-matrimonial element would be approximately £50 million and the matrimonial element around £130 million. This would suggest an indicative award to the Wife of £65.5 million. If I was to do such a calculation, both sides would undoubtedly raise issues with the figures. Miss Bangay would ask why I did not include the loan notes transferred to the Husband after JR’s death as non-matrimonial. There would be two answers to that. First, given that $370 million had already been extracted, these remaining loan notes could only be honoured due to the very significant increase in value of the business under the Husband’s stewardship. Second, in so far as there is force in this point, it is largely lost by the figure of $50 million already transferred to the Trust for the children. Miss Stone, on the other hand, would argue that I had overstated the non-matrimonial element, given that the figure of $370 million was considerably in excess of the indicative value of the business in the Memorandum by Mr D the previous year, which was $210 to c. $260 million. I accept that this was only an indicative valuation but it does suggest that my initial approach may have been somewhat generous to the Husband. 90.I therefore performed, in addition, the broader brush Hart calculation. I consider that such an approach would be likely to produce a figure for the Wife of between 37.5% and 40% of the net assets. I accept that it could be said that these are arbitrary figures although they are well within the guidelines set out in the various cases. I consider that both percentages would give sufficient weight to the non-matrimonial origin of ABC Inc business, whilst reflecting the enormous matrimonial growth in value. On the basis of total assets of £184,682,176, this would lead to an award of between £69,255,000 and £73,872,000. An average of all three calculations is £69.5 million. 91.Overall, I am of the view that the figure produced by the first calculation, namely £65.5 million does not sufficiently reflect the huge increase in value during the marriage. I have decided that the proper award is £70 million, which is just under 38% of the assets. On this basis, the Wife will not have to share in any tax payable following the conclusion of the tax enquiry. If the Husband negotiates a better figure than the amount I determined, he will be able to keep that benefit. If the end result is a higher liability, he will just have to shoulder that burden out of his 62% of the assets, which I remind myself amounts to £114.7 million. I am also against any