Case No. EWFC-75

The wife’s open offer in the financial remedy proceedings was as lacking in merit as her pursuit of the trust claims; she sought the two properties outright (37 St Michael’s Avenue and 36 Beaconsfield), a lump sum to discharge the small mortgage of £10k on 37 St Michael’s Avenue and two properties in Bangladesh about which there is no evidence that the husband even owns them. In her statement that was filed very shortly before the hearing she made even more unrealistic proposals [G48 – her claims were as now but also included ‘a lump sum of half the equity available from ‘52 High St and 4 Morland’].15.The husband’s open offer only arrived in closing speeches (he had made no open offer at all before that in the 3 ½ years of this litigation to which I have been referred). When his offer did come (in closing speeches) it had obviously been guided by Mr Miah and so, unsurprisingly, it was, of course (if I may say), a clever offer. The husband’s primary case is that the wife should move back to 36 Beaconsfield Rd with 37 St Michael’s Avenue being sold to pay off debts. Realising the limitations of that primary position due to its impact on the children, Mr Miah postulated that 36 Beaconsfield might be sold and the proceeds divided so that the wife’s cost liabilities might be met and the husband has some capital released to him at this stage. Beyond that, Mr Miah further postulated, in the unusual circumstances of this case and given the wide age range of the children, the court might make a Mesher - type order in relation to 37 St Michael’s Avenue (with only the children’s ages or further order being the trigger points for sale since the wife has already remarried). A division of 80/20% (my example, not Mr Miah’s) in the wife’s favour, would leave her with £400,000 on sale at present values and the husband with £100,000 at a time when the children were all adult. Further, if the wife and her husband wished to buy out the husband’s share, they would be able to do so, if the order were to be drafted in the correct terms (this would require care due to potential CGT implications for the husband that might arise from a charge based order). As Mr Miah submitted, a simple solution that the wife has 37 St Michaels Avenue and the husband has Beaconsfield Rd would be unworkable now, in any event, due to costs and CGT on Beaconsfield Rd.16.