[2025] EWHC 2997 (Fam)

Fecha: 31-Oct-2025

An amended ES2

An amended ES2

85.

In the light of the above I have worked through the ES2 and attach my own version.

86.

This largely follows the ES2 provided for me at the beginning of the hearing. I have adopted the parties’ own positions as to the balances in their respective accounts. It makes little difference and I assume they have the more up to date versions.

87.

I make the following comments:

As to business interests my changed figures follow my findings. I have recalculated the husband’s CGT in accordance with the findings.

I have recorded the DLA as a deduction in the husband’s business interests as it will be from that it will be satisfied. I have, as both parties had done, allowed a further deduction being the tax on the dividend to clear the DLA. That is consequent on the path both parties had assumed for the DLA to be cleared. (It would of course be the case that there would then be tax to be paid on the dividend taken to clear the tax (if it is to be met by further dividend), but like the parties I am not going to pursue this infinite and diminishing regression. There is also money being made by the business.)

I have included £75,000 for Company J as Mr Dodge had done but note Mr Strickland had not. I heard no argument on this, it being a relatively small sum. In short I have preferred the more detailed account in Mr Dodge’s appendices to the dismissal of value because it is loss making that I gather from Mr Strickland’s report.

In the liabilities section I have taken out the amount owing to Lawrence Stephens by the husband as Mr Boydell says it has been paid and is reflected in the DLA, and I have included £35,000 which he tells me is due to his solicitors.

88.

What is apparent is that this case is really about some £2.7 million of liquid funds arising from the sale of Property A which will be needed to provide accommodation and some £3.8 million of illiquid funds which generate a substantial income.

89.

If I were to use the minority discount as a device to balance liquidity and illiquidity at 30% of £15.1 m (the husband’s interest in the Company A) it would be £4.53 million. I cannot simply knock that off the £3.8 million because of course the CGT would fall and the DLA could be met from the proceeds of sale rather than taking more dividends and paying tax on them. Running through those steps on the excel sheet which has my ES2 I note that would leave me with a figure of about £2.56 million for business assets. That is just arithmetic, but it does appear to me that there is good argument for saying in this case that £2.7 million liquid is worth more than £3.8 million illiquid.