Introduction
1.In financial remedy proceedings brought by the husband (“H”) against the wife (“W”) an issue has arisen as to the beneficial ownership of Flats 1 & 2, 30 DS, London (“30 DS”), compendiously at times called by me “the new flat”, the two flats comprising one premises.2.It is the case of H that the premises belong both legally and beneficially to W, in whose name the flats are registered. It is the case of W and her brother (“B”) that the flats are beneficially owned by B. Accordingly, B has been joined to these proceedings as 2nd Respondent. As it is B’s case that he is the beneficial owner, he has been treated as the applicant in these proceedings.3.Little is agreed between H and W, as has been the case throughout the enormous number of proceedings between them, mostly conducted over the last year before me.4.The parties have raised very many issues of fact and argument, both in evidence and by way of submission. I shall refer in this judgment to those that I regard as important. I have considered them all.5.One fact that has been agreed is that the purchase monies for the new flat came directly from B’s sterling account in Russia into the account of the conveyancing solicitors. In addition, it is agreed that W and/or H paid nothing towards the purchase price or the expenses of purchase.6.The legal representatives of the parties also agree that what I am determining is in reality a straight issue of fact. Notwithstanding the conveyancing documents clearly identifying W as both the legal and beneficial owner of the new flat, do I accept the account of W and B that at all times it was their common intention that the new flat was to be beneficially held by W for B and that in due course W would in accordance with B’s instructions transfer it either to B or to his elder daughter; or do I prefer the argument of H, namely that the monies were a gift to W, payment for work done by her, or transfer of family assets from W’s family to her, and that the documents accurately set out what was agreed?7.I heard evidence from all the parties, H in person and W and B remotely from Russia, an arrangement that although initially contentious ultimately ceased to be so, and from Mr SB (“SB”) in person, Mr C, conveyancing solicitor, initially in person but when he went part heard remotely, and Mr D, tax advisor, remotely. The technology largely worked well.