Case No. BV19D16672

88.Having resolved the valuation issues it is necessary to turn to the question of the extent to which W’s share in the business should be discounted to reflect the fact that for 5 years at a minimum H will have to commit himself fully to his work in the business to build up liquidity and that without such work the value will not be achieved. 89.I have to strike a balance bearing in mind important points on both sides:i)On behalf of W it is rightly said that H’s interest in the business reflects what was built up during the marriage.ii)Whilst H will be working hard in the business he will also be earning a very good income. Mr Bezant’s notional calculation of an income of $5m pa far exceeds what H has actually received over the last few years, as Mr Bezant readily accepts; but, I find it hard to believe that in one way or another H is likely to be drawing much less than $2m pa from the business bearing in mind his track history of receipts over his business life.iii)In 2018 H had very substantial liquid capital and would have been in the position to make payment to W of her award. Although W puts weight on this point, I do not regard it as of such significance as it was always the intention that the money, or most of it, would be put into ABC.90.On the other hand H will point to:i)His unmatched post separation endeavour to achieve liquidity in the company which it is currently without.ii) It is only H’s personal relationship with key clients that enables money to be extracted at all.iii)To the extent that any future big deals actually happen, that will be a result of his endeavours post separation. He will also need to find new income streams for ABC.iv)He might have an accident or illness which could remove his working ability with catastrophic consequences which would be much greater for him than for W. 91.I accept that W’s sharing in the business assets must be discounted to reflect the illiquidity and risk attached to the assets.