Case No. BV20D07073

[1970] 1 All ER 540). The Wife could have done anything she wished with the money. She could have gambled it all away. If she had placed it in trust, there would have been no possibility of the Husband now seeking it back. It is not disputed that the Husband had significant assets when the parties began to cohabit 18 years ago, but it is argued that the parties chose not to have a pre-nuptial agreement, which would have been binding on them in Country C. They add that this is the clearest possible evidence of a partnership marriage. Whilst their client could argue that £80 million worth of the assets are now her separate property to do with as she wishes, she accepts that the previous agreement for a partnership marriage means that the assets should be divided equally. They assert that such an equal division can only be departed from if there is something truly exceptional such as special contribution, which is not asserted by the Husband here. They add that arguments about provenance have long been consigned to history as discriminatory. The document makes much of the fact that the Husband has not called Mr P to give evidence, notwithstanding a warning from the Wife’s solicitors that this would lead to a submission that adverse inferences should be drawn against him by this failure and, in particular, that the Husband could not benefit from the £80 million once he had transferred it to the Wife.44.The document goes on to remind me that the three children of the Wife’s first marriage were very much children of the family, being only 7, 5 and 3 on cohabitation. They then deal with add-back. If the Wife was to be penalised for spending money on NN, she would have to be given credit for that part of the increase in the value of the property from £18 million, when it was first valued by Strutt & Parker, to the current agreed figure of £21.6 million, referrable to her works. They add that I would have to have had valuation evidence as to the effect of the works the Wife has done on its valuation to be able to undertake such an exercise. They then assert that BT was a much loved family home. The Wife is a joint owner of the business. It would be entirely wrong to treat her less favourably as a joint owner than if she had been the Husband’s mistress, when he could not have taken her shares or assets back from her. It is asserted that the Husband is re-running old