Case No. BV19D16672

92.Fairness is the touchstone by which all financial remedy orders must be judged. I apply the criteria set out in s.25 MCA to assist in the search for such a solution.93.It is instructive to look at the matter in different ways. I have calculated W’s share of the property assets at £3.43m. If I were to take her entitlement to share in the business assets at 33.3% of £37.365m her award would be £3.43m + £12.45m = £15.88m of which the FMH would provide £5.91m, leaving a lump sum entitlement of £9.97m. When her own non-property assets of £1.32m are taken into account her award would represent 36.5% of the total assets. 94.If I were to take W as entitled to 30% of the business, her share would be £11.20m. Using the same basis of calculation, her lump sum would reduce to £8.72m and her share of the total assets would be 33.8%. 95.I do not think that it would be right to leave W with less than a one-third share of the assets and nor would it be fair for H to have to pay more than £10m by way of lump sum (36.5% of the total) for the reasons given. 96.After much thought I consider that the appropriate award is one that leaves W with 35% of the total assets. This will require a payment to her of a lump sum which I round to £9.3m. This unequal division properly reflects the benefit of the cash that she will receive while H continues his efforts to build up the business.