Case No. BV20D07073

2.The Husband was born in Britain and is aged 69. He moved to Country C in 1976. He had an extremely successful career in business. He retired in October 2007 and has not worked since. He is currently residing at a rented property in central London.3.The Wife was born in Country C and is aged 54. She is a homemaker and child carer. She lives at the former matrimonial home, NN which is a very substantial 18 bedroom property set in 84 acres and with a number of other properties on the estate. It now has an agreed value of £21.6 million.4.It is necessary to give some background to the Husband’s business career. This is important as the way I should deal with the wealth he had at the time he formed a settled relationship with the Wife is a significant issue in the case. He went straight from school to work in 1972 but relocated to Country C in 1976. He was granted permanent residency in Country C in 1977 and married his first wife, in 1979. He and his first wife had three children, now aged between 38 and 41. In 1980, he became a partner at Firm, F. In the mid-1980s Firm F was sold to Firm G. The Husband made C$127 million from this transaction. In 1993, the Husband was made Chief Executive Officer of Firm G. In the mid-1990s Firm G was acquired by Firm H. Again, the Husband made significant money from this buyout.5.In 1992/1993, the Wife married her first husband. The wife’s first husband was a colleague of the Husband at Firm H. They also had three children, now aged between 22 and 25. I am entirely satisfied that all three were children of the family.6.In 1999, the Husband was appointed Chairman and CEO of a regional division of Firm H, before joining the Executive Board of Firm H in 2002. In 2002, he purchased a very large cattle and sheep farm known as BT in a remote area of Country C. It now covers 6,005 hectares. It was acquired in the joint names of himself and his first wife. The purchase price was C$7,096,250 but he also paid C$4,872,469 for the livestock and plant/equipment. He separated from his first wife during 2002. As part of the divorce settlement, BT was transferred into his sole name.7.The Husband knew the Wife via her first husband. Indeed, he was the godfather of their daughter. A relationship developed between them during 2003. The Wife says that they got engaged at BT in September 2003, although the Husband denies that. At the end of 2003, the Husband was appointed to a senior position at Firm H and had to relocate to Country D. It is clear that he convinced the Wife to relocate with him to Country D along with her three young children. She reached an agreement with her first husband, allowing the children to move to Country D. This was incorporated in a consent order in Country C dated 26 May 2004. In relation to finances, a property in Country C was transferred to the Wife. Originally, it had been acquired from her parents. At the time of transfer, it was worth C$2.75 million but was subject to a mortgage of (C$1.8 million) which the Husband subsequently paid off in October 2004. The wife’s first husband also paid the Wife a lump sum of C$250,000 and maintenance of C$5,000 per month until she left for Country D, which was only a few days later. A farm was transferred to the Wife’s first husband. It is abundantly clear that the Husband took on much of the financial responsibility for the three children of the Wife’s first marriage, who were then only aged 7, 5 and 4. For example, the Wife was responsible for the costs of the children travelling back to Country C to spend time with their father.8.Indeed, the Wife and her three children left for Country D in June 2004. The Husband says that they became engaged at the very end of 2005, although they were clearly committed partners at least from the time the Wife moved to Country D. They married in Country D on 19 December 2005. Their son, X, was born shortly thereafter, so he is now aged 16. Their daughter, Y, was born in 2007, so she is aged 15. X is at boarding school. Y is a day pupil.9.In 2007, the Husband retired from Firm H and the family returned to Country C on 1 July 2008. They lived at the Wife’s former matrimonial home, but spent time at BT during school holidays. I have to say that the standard of accommodation at BT was extremely basic by any standards, let alone in comparison to the standard of accommodation at NN. They decided, however, to move to England so that the children could be educated here. In 2009, NN was acquired in joint names for £9,577,480 but they did not move in immediately, as they then undertook renovations that lasted until 2011. The cost of these renovations is in dispute. The Wife says the cost was some £7 million, whereas the Husband puts the total bill at around £2.5 million. Either way, there is no doubt that the entire purchase price and the cost of the renovations was provided by the Husband. In 2010, the Husband sold a property in Country C for C$7.5 million. The Wife sold her property in Country C in April 2011 for C$5.6 million.10.The parties moved to England to live in NN during 2010. The Husband secured dual citizenship for the children of the Wife’s first marriage so that they could also attend school in England. Indeed, the Husband became UK resident on 23 June 2011 and filed tax returns here but on the basis of him retaining a domicile of choice in Country C. Whether he was entitled to do so is open to question, but HMRC appear to have accepted the position. There were occasional returns to Country C for holidays, such as at Christmas 2015/2016, weddings, and the ill-health/death of relatives. Both the Wife’s parents died during this period and the Wife’s first husband also died in early February 2016. It appears that each of the three children of the Wife’s first marriage inherited approximately £3 million from his estate.11.In 2016/2017, the Husband took advice from Mr P of Firm M as to tax planning. In particular, the Husband was concerned about Inheritance Tax as he was due to become deemed domiciled in this jurisdiction in April 2017. He was worried that, if he died here, his estate would have to pay approximately £32 million in UK IHT. The Wife, on the other hand, was non-domiciled due to her domicile of origin being Country C. He was advised that, provided he transferred his assets to the Wife before he became deemed domiciled, the assets would escape UK IHT. It is abundantly clear that he then intended, once a suitable period of time had elapsed, that the Wife would place the assets in discretionary trusts in Jersey. Indeed, a Jersey firm of professional trustees, was selected. Moreover, Firm M drafted trust deeds but the trusts were not established. The Husband says that he discussed whether it was time to do so with the Wife in April 2018 but nothing happened, either then or the following year. There are a number of issues surrounding this tax planning exercise. One such issue is whether the Husband would have been able to benefit from any such trusts once they had been established. In any event, pursuant to the scheme, the Husband transferred approximately £77 million worth of assets to the Wife in March and early April 2017. They are now worth just over £80 million.12.At the same time, accrued profits in the BT farming business were causing tax difficulties in Country C. An ingenious scheme was devised whereby these profits could be used to acquire “A” shares in the business in the name of the Wife. This would avoid the profits being taxed. In consequence, the Wife was issued 9,1534,817 non-voting A shares in the business. The Husband retained 12 ordinary shares, which carry the entire voting rights. There had been a natural disaster in 2009 at BT. In late 2019/early 2020, there was a second devastating natural disaster at the property. Unfortunately, large numbers of sheep died. The insurance claims have still not been fully settled. The farm continues in operation, operating over 6,005 hectares (14,788 acres). As at today’s date, it has 4,405 commercial cattle; 511 stud cattle; and 5,790 Merino sheep. I will return to the valuation of BT later in this judgment.13.The marriage broke down in early 2020. There was a very unfortunate incident in 2020, after which the Husband left NN permanently. I have been absolutely clear that conduct, as it is defined in section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is not relevant to this case. Indeed, I have directed that a number of conduct allegations be redacted from the Forms E and statements in the case. I do, however, need to record that the Husband was prosecuted in relation to the incident. In 2021, a court cleared him of the relevant charges following a trial at which both parties and the children gave evidence.