ZZ21D58773 - [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)

Within days of separation, H reduced the monthly funds that had been available to W. This was the start of a campaign launched by H against W. The campaign included demanding the return of W’s Porsche and other items kept at the family home but which technically belonged to DEF. W refused to return the Porsche and in December 2022 H brought proceedings against her in DEF’s name in the Central London County Court for its return. She eventually was compelled to return it. H now drives it. H also began paying inappropriately high sums to the children. There is no doubt that these actions were designed to put pressure on W. They also indicated that H would be approaching the parties’ divorce in an aggressive manner.

In November 2021, H applied to place ABC into administration. Given H’s approach to this litigation, W has remained very sceptical about this action. For reasons which I will explain in due course, I do not believe that this action was taken as a result of the divorce or to prejudice W. However, the unfortunate co-incidence of timing has to a degree caused W to focus on issues which are not of primary significance.

A few days later in November 2021, W issued a petition for divorce. A decree nisi was pronounced in the divorce suit in July 2022. These financial remedy proceedings, which flow from that suit, were issued by H in January 2022. He issued in the Chelmsford Family Court. I am told by W that H had agreed to issue in the Central Family Court, due to the complexity of the case. It was suggested that I should read something nefarious into H’s decision to issue in Chelmsford. I do not do so.

A first appointment was listed at the Chelmsford County Court in August 2022. The parties prepared for it. Forms E were served and questionnaires exchanged. The Forms E make interesting reading: H put his total net capital at £65,503 and W put hers at £3,319,093. H’s interest in LM1 was put at nil. In the first of a series of unfortunate events in the history of this litigation, the first appointment was cancelled. Despite the parties using the day for a roundtable meeting with counsel, nothing would appear to have been agreed to progress the case. With hindsight, that is a great shame.

In February 2023a private equity firm entered into a share purchase agreement with LM1, under which a small part of H’s interest in the company was sold for c.£1.2m. The balance of his shareholding was diluted down to 24%. The private equity firm agreed to invest $360 million into the project. The sale of these shares and the agreement was not disclosed by H.

In April 2023, the Chelmsford County Court notified the parties that the adjourned first appointment would be heard on September 2023. I pause to observe that the notice of hearing is dated January 2023 but was not supplied by the court to the parties until April. This is a serious deficiency but a far more serious deficiency is giving the parties a date more than twelve months after an appointment which had been cancelled by the court. I cannot explain this and can only apologise to the parties.

The first appointment was heard by District Judge O’Malley at the Chelmsford County Court in September 2023. That judge made directions for disclosure by questionnaire, for transfer to the Central Family Court and/or allocation to a High Court level judge if considered appropriate by the local lead judge, for the instruction of single joint experts to value the family home, real property held by DEF, chattels, held directly and by the companies, and the companies themselves, and for the listing of a hearing to deal with W’s unissued application for interim provision and further directions. H’s interest in LM1 was not to be valued as H had disclosed he was in negotiations to ‘exit’. He asserted at the hearing that his negotiations, the contents of which had not been disclosed, were covered by a non-disclosure agreement with the private equity firm. He was ordered to produce the NDA and a narrative explanation of the negotiations. He failed to comply with the court’s timetable for disclosure of that material. In the event, it transpired that there was no NDA.

In October 2023, H entered into an agreement for the sale of his shareholding to the private equity firm. Under the agreement, H was to receive a total of £29.5 million, with £20 million payable immediately and £9.5 million deferred for two years, to October 2025. The £20 million was paid to H on 25 October 2023. Meanwhile, on 16 October 2023, Judge Gordon-Saker, the local lead financial remedies judge, refused the request to transfer the case to London and directed the case to be listed in Cambridge before a judge with a financial remedy complexity ticket. She also made directions for the filing of any application by W for interim provision.

On 10 November 2023, H’s solicitors wrote to W’s solicitors and advised them that the transaction for the sale of H’s shares in LM1 had been agreed and completed. They enclosed a heavily redacted version of the agreement. This does not appear to have given any figures for the transaction. On 15 November 2023, W issued an application for interim provision in accordance with Judge Gordon-Saker’s direction. On 22 November 2023, W issued an application for a freezing injunction in respect of the proceeds of the sale of the LM1 shares. That application came before Judge Spinks at a hearing on 27 November 2023, without notice to H. I understand that it had not been W’s intention to ask for the hearing to be heard without notice. The judge nonetheless made an order freezing the proceeds and listed a return date on 13 December 2023.

On 6 December 2023, H served his answers to questionnaire. It was about three weeks late. The letter of instruction to Ms Hart of Quantuma, the single joint expert appointed to value the business was sent to her on 7 December 2023, some two months late.

On 13 December 2023, Judge Gordon-Saker heard the return date of the injunction. H’s statement disclosed only the initial payment of £20 million. H explained that it was his intention to invest £19,514,750 into various projects, i.e. the whole of the liquid receipt was to be transferred into largely illiquid projects. At the hearing, Mr Molyneux KC explained to the court that there was an additional payment of £9.5 million due in October 2025. This would have been clear had H disclosed the agreement. The judge ordered that £3 million should be held in escrow and a further £4 million should be charged against a second port which H had indicated since August 2023, that he intended to purchase. In the event that the purchase of the port did not proceed, H was to pay £4 million into the escrow account or offer equivalent security. H was ordered to pay the costs of the on-notice hearing but not attendance at the without notice hearing.

On 8 January 2024, W’s application for interim provision was heard by Judge Robin Chaudhri. He recorded his indication that Mr Justice Peel should consider (or possibly re-consider) allocation to High Court Judge level. He also recorded the parties’ intention to have a private FDR before Mr Nigel Dyer KC in May 2024. He recorded various agreements about interim provision and ordered H to pay W maintenance pending suit in the sum of £227,400 per annum or £18,950 per month and provided for W’s legal fees to be drawn from the frozen escrow account including £88,708 to repay a loan to Level, £87,000 to cover costs to the private FDR and £30,381 for the costs of the interim provision application. He directed that there be a 1 hour hearing before him after the private FDR to reconsider legal costs provision.

In March 2024, H’s solicitors wrote to say that the negotiations for the purchase of the second port were taking longer than expected. On 8 April 2024, Judge Gordon-Saker ruled that in the event the second port deal was not proceeding then £4 million should be paid into the escrow account. On 1 May 2024, H purchased a property – “H’s property” for £3.4 million. On 28 June 2024, the case was transferred to London and allocated to the High Court Bench. On 27 August 2024, the mortgage on the family home was discharged using money from the escrow account. At some point after the purchase of H’s property, H informed W that the second port transaction would not be going through and he offered a charge on H’s property or GH, DEF’s trading premises. Unsurprisingly given that H’s property was unhabitable, due to works H was carrying out, it could not be charged and W was, sensibly, not minded to accept a charge over GH given that it was not part of the £20 million receipt and a charge over it would represent a loss of security.

On 17 September 2024, the court listed a hearing on 12 December 2024. The case was at some point after 17 September 2024 allocated to me. This final hearing was listed in my diary at some juncture soon after that allocation. On 8 October 2024, W issued an application for H’s committal to prison for his failure to pay the additional £4 million into the escrow account. The application was served on H on 16 October 2024. The process server who served him has made a witness statement in which he accuses H of assaulting him when he served the application. On 11 November 2024, H paid the £4 million into the escrow account. On 6 December 2024, W issued an application for an order for provision for legal services and other directions.

The matter came before me on 12 December 2024. I recorded the parties’ agreement to attend a private FDR on 24 March 2025 and I directed that:

On 19 March 2025, H made an application in respect of the instruction of the chattels expert. On 4 April 2025, W made an application for a production order for an order that the private equity firm produce their copy of the October 2023 agreement on the basis that she had heard H had sold his shares for £60 million and not £29.5 million. She also made an application in respect of failings she alleged that H had made when updating his disclosure. On 7 April 2025, H obtained the original contract from the private equity firm which demonstrated that H had not doctored the document and that he had indeed received £29.5 million. On 9 April 2025, H made an application to lodge extended bundles at the final hearing. On the same day, Ms Hart complained about H’s aggressive manner when he was on the telephone with her associate.

On 11 April 2025, the matter came before me for the second time for the PTR. The case was in a sorry state. Ms Hart’s report had not been produced. This appeared to have been caused by an impasse over the valuation of chattels. There was no agreement about the tax consequences of the payment of £29.5 million. There had been no FDR. Mr Thorpe KC’s note for that hearing informed me of the emotional turmoil suffered by the family. I was informed of the very difficult circumstances caused by the children’s behaviour. Despite this, Mr Thorpe KC’s note indicated that his client would be seeking an adjournment of the trial. I was surprised on the morning of the hearing that Mr Molyneux KC joined Mr Thorpe KC’s cause. At the start of the hearing, H refused to come into court. I suspect that this was because he was so dismayed that there might be an adjournment.

The financial proceedings had begun in January 2021. At the time of the PTR, three years and nearly three months had passed. It was plain to me that this family needed resolution of this case as soon as possible. I made it very clear that, so long as Ms Hart could report in time for the final hearing, I would not be adjourning it. In order to achieve this, I dispensed with the chattels valuation on the basis that Ms Hart would use cost price for the chattels owned by the companies and I would allow the parties to make submissions and put forward alternative valuations based on alternative approaches to the value of the chattels. I also made it clear that, in the event either party disputed Ms Hart’s valuation, either party could make a Daniels v Walker application and, if successful, I would consider an adjournment of the final hearing.

It is unusual to allow a case to proceed to a final hearing without the parties engaging in an FDR. The timetable I imposed did not allow sufficient time for an FDR but I required the parties to attend a roundtable on the first day of the trial which was set aside for my reading. I was quite sure that, if there was any hope of settling this case, Mr Molyneux KC and Mr Thorpe KC would achieve that end. I have no doubt that my decision to dispense with an FDR was the right course of action in this case. My order also recorded and/or directed the following:

As I was putting so much pressure on the solicitors to enable the case to proceed to final hearing, I took the unusual step of allowing unlimited length bundles. I was concerned that arguments about the contents of the bundles might distract preparation of the case. I also directed that I was to be informed by counsel of any slippage in the timetable. I am pleased to report that the only slippage in the timetable was a five-day delay in service of W’s points of alleged conduct and a consequent three day delay in service of the s25 statements. All other directions were complied with on time. No applications were made by either party for any further expert evidence.

And so, the final hearing commenced on 15 May 2025. I had one day set aside for reading. I was supplied with a core bundle comprising 1205 pages, an experts bundle of 251 pages, a bundle of material relating to Ms Hart’s report amounting to 422 pages, a bundle of ‘preliminary documents’ running to 91 pages, a bundle of exhibits and miscellaneous documents amounting to 7321 pages and a bundle of authorities which reached page 979. I make the total page count 10,899 pages. In ‘old money’, I make that the equivalent some 31 lever arch files. I will not pretend I have read them all. I told the parties at the PTR that I would concentrate my reading on the core bundle and expert material and that I would expect other material to be used in cross examination and referred to in submissions. Although this represents an absurd amount of material to put before the court, I have no doubt that, even without argument, any attempt to reduce the material to a manageable quantity would have likely run the risk that the bundles would not have been ready in time for the final hearing and/or other important issues might have been neglected and the fixture lost. I am most grateful to H’s solicitor, Ms Walpole, for arranging three iPads for use in the witness box, which enabled the witnesses to navigate these enormous bundles with relative ease. It seems to me that iPads, or similar tablets, should be used in all final hearings. They are much easier for witnesses to use than laptops or old fashioned paper bundles.

Turning to the costs occasioned by the proceedings, the Forms H1 show that H’s legal costs amount to £693,365 including VAT and W’s amount to £751,434 including VAT. The total costs are therefore £1,444,799. These are extremely high and many judges have made many comments about the disproportionate size of costs in financial remedies. I do not need to add to the cannon of those comments but I pause to note that in this case the costs are roughly 5% of the assets as I will in due course find them to be and that, in the wider world, and in other more commercial contexts such as the sale of businesses, it is not unusual to see fees at this level or indeed higher. In this particular case, for instance, the parties agree that the costs of selling their real property will be 3% of the value. The simplicity of such a transaction is incomparable to the complexity of litigating this case.

At the hearing, I heard oral evidence from H on Friday 16 May and Monday 17 May and from W on Tuesday 18 May. Ms Hart gave evidence on Wednesday 19 May. I heard submissions on Thursday 20 May. I reserved this judgment, which I circulated in draft on Tuesday 27 May 2025. I received corrections from the parties on 9 June 2025 and with those corrections five issues were raised by H’s legal team. I received written submissions from the parties on the five issues on 18 June 2025. My rulings on those issues are incorporated into this judgment which I formally handed down by email on 25 June 2025.