Case No. BV19D16672

71.Attached to this judgment is a simplified asset schedule with the values as I have found them to be when in dispute. I make the following additional comments:(i)On my findings, before redistribution the property assets should properly be seen as being held as to £4.75m (H) and £3.43m (W). This provides for W’s modest interest in H’s pre-marital home and H’s use of matrimonial funds to buy out his sister’s interest in the Middle Eastern property in addition to the jointly owned FMH.(ii)H’s costs far exceed those of W. He has spent some £2.15m and she some £1.3m. Each owes money as set out in the schedule. I have taken the figure for H that is outstanding in the FR proceedings. I am not prepared to include the sum of £170,000 (astonishingly high when there has not yet been a FHDRA) in respect of Children Act costs, and when W’s schedule does not include such figures.(iii) On that basis H’s other non-business assets inclusive of his pension fund of just over £1m net of substantial liabilities amount to £312,414. W’s other assets inclusive of her slightly smaller pension fund total £1,328,230. (iv) I find that H’s business interests amount to £37.365m, his interest in ABC being slightly more valuable than the value of his personal shares.(v)I have reduced the amount of the co-founder’s priority loan by the $3.3m recently paid to him by ABC. I accept that this might be matched by a corresponding reduction in another asset of the company. I can see no benefit, however, in leaving the loan in the schedule at a figure which is incorrect. Whilst H may feel this is the wrong approach, it will make only a relatively modest difference to the value of his interest and is more than matched by the reduction I have allowed for in the value of his Q shares. It illustrates the fragility of a valuation.