Case No. BV19D16672

85.There is next to no liquidity in the business or in H’s personal shareholding. This is a point of significance. If value is to be extracted from the company it can only be done by H remaining in the business for what is likely to be a significant period of time. No purchaser would accept his precipitate departure. The business is heavily dependent on the relationships between H and his co-founder on the one hand and the business customers, in particular the principal shareholder of TC, on the other hand.86.ABC operates, like so many, in a world of very volatile markets over which it has little control. World threats do not lead to a comfortable business existence. Without H’s continued work the business does not have value and neither party will benefit. 87.I have to balance and weigh up powerful points made on each side. On behalf of W it is argued by Ms Clarke and Ms Batt that the value in the business was created during the marriage, and that there is no reason in principle why W should not share in it equally save for the necessity for H to continue to work to achieve its value and the fact that he is taking the risk-laden assets.On the other hand Mr Bishop and Ms Sumner argue that H is the one that is taking the risk. It is only his work that will achieve payment to W.