Case No. BV20D11362

[2015] 1 FLR 745 as another example of post-separation accrual reducing the award but Mr Marks points out that, at [184], Roberts J found that the composition of the portfolio at the date of the trial was very substantially different in terms of its makeup from its composition at the date of separation. At [185], she considered the argument that he had just been trading a vehicle that dated from the marriage, but rejected it on the basis that it was the Husband’s investment eye and ability to drive change that had achieved profit demonstrably in excess of normal returns and to ignore that would, in effect, be sharing his earning capacity after the date of the marriage. Whilst I can see arguments both ways, I am clear that I will be able to deal with this case on the basis of the principles set out previously, without undue reliance on Cooper-Hohn v Hohn. 55.There are a few further matters I must mention. The first is a potential language barrier. English is not the first language of either party. I accept that both speak it excellently, but there were times in the evidence of both when I had some trouble understanding what they were saying and had to ask for the evidence to be repeated. I must, therefore, take great care in assessing their evidence, as processing information provided in a foreign language may put the participant at a disadvantage. I must guard against the very real possibility that questions or answers or both are misunderstood or, at the least, nuances and shades of different meaning are lost in the process. I have taken all this into account in assessing the evidence in this case. 56.I have decided that I should give myself a