Case No. BV20D11362

42.The Position Statement filed on behalf of the Wife by Mr Marks and Mr Lazarides at the commencement of the hearing is extremely critical of the Husband’s argument that there should be a departure from equality based on special-contribution, reminding me that nobody has succeeded in the claim since 2014 and arguing that it is inherently discriminatory. Turning to post-separation accrual, they remind the court that there will be no future contributions to the trading company going forward. The value generated was only achieved at considerable risk to the Wife’s share, which, they say, is particularly relevant in a case where the business nearly failed during the currency of the proceedings. They strongly dispute that there was a new venture, arguing that this was not assets created after separation but assets developed after separation. They also remind me that the Husband was not working full-time during the separation and that he accepted that his ability to focus had diminished as a result of his health difficulties. 43.The Husband’s Position Statement points out that, at separation, the Husband’s share of the business was worth only £33 million according to Mr Taylor, whereas, when sold, it was worth over £250 million. It is argued that the difference was the move into producing the product for specialised therapies and that this was tantamount to creating a new venture. The wealth generated after the ending of the partnership is not based on common endeavour. The sharing principle does not apply after separation. It is contended that the reference to contributions in section 25 would, in effect, have been airbrushed from the statute if not considered. In relation to the specialised therapy, it is contended that state of the art laboratories were built; researchers were employed; and the documentation produced by the investment banks in relation to the sale all refer to specialised therapy as being a strong driver of value.