[2025] EWHC 2997 (Fam)

This case has been argued, as to the evidence given by the parties, on a needs basis. The big issue between the parties does appear to be the scale of the resources against which I should assess those needs. The wife however through Mr Lewis maintains that this is a sharing case, or at least the higher of needs and sharing. In relation to the anticipated argument that much of the wealth is derived post-separation I am referred to GA v EL (no 2) [2023] EWFC 206.

Mr Boydell is clear that needs is the proper approach. He reminds me this is a short marriage and that the success of Company A largely arises after the parties separated. On his account as to the value of the assets, it is necessarily a needs case.

I will make findings on the issues as to business valuations before determining the proper approach. I do note however that where, as here, it is common ground that the husband will not be able to rehouse other than in rented property because the assets he will be retaining are illiquid, then the parties’ reasonable needs are likely to play a very heavy part in my determination.

I do remind myself that in making my decision I need to consider the matters set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. My first consideration shall be the welfare of any child of the family, while a minor, and I will be considering the financial resources including earning capacity, the financial needs and obligations, the standard of living before the breakdown of the marriage, the age of the parties and duration of the marriage, any disability, and contributions including future contributions looking after the family.