ZZ21D58773 - [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)

Equally, I have no difficulty in finding that, from separation in September 2021 until Judge Robin Chaudhuri made his orders for interim provision in January 2024, H failed to make proper and appropriate provision for W’s expenses. Throughout most of this period, DEF was in receipt of very high income from LM1 and H was able to spend as much as he wanted on his living expenses.

During the marriage, W received a weekly payment of either £1,000 per week or £1,250 per week. In addition she was able to charge items to H’s Amazon account, which amounted to about £433 per month, she had use of a credit card on which she usually spent up to £4,000 per month, she had access to cash from the safe of £1,000 per week, all her car expenses were met by H or DEF, including the use of a fuel card and all outgoings on the family home were met by H or DEF. H also met the costs of the housekeeper and gardener.

On separation, H stopped paying the cash element, the Amazon account use, the credit card, the fuel card and reduced the direct payments. The gardener was reduced from 5 days a week to one day a week. The utility bills were unilaterally transferred into W’s name and W was required to present them to H for payment. She was given nothing for holidays and did not enjoy one until 2024. This was all at a time when H was spending lavishly on himself and the children.

I have already alluded to H’s answer about the Ibiza holiday but I will take one more example of H’s responses. In his statement in answer to the application for interim provision he said: ‘During the marriage we had a gardener 2 days per week for 1 year, there was a 6-month period where it was more frequent to landscape the garden only.’ In oral evidence he admitted that this was untrue, that the gardener had worked for many years and was full time. He sought to explain away his written answer by joking that the gardener didn’t work very hard.

In May 2022, H’s accountants wrote to W telling her that the weekly receipt she had been receiving from DEF was in fact consultancy income and not PAYE (as it had been). This was designed to make her pay tax on the receipt from separation. H asserted through his solicitors on 6 October 2022 that this had been communicated to her by H directly on 1 October 2021, they enclosed a letter bearing that date to evidence this. However, it is clear from an email dated 23 May 2022 from H’s accountants to H that the October letter was not drafted until May 2022. I find that in May 2022, H decided to make this alteration to apply more pressure on W and gave false instructions to his solicitors to cause them to insinuate that he had sent W the letter in October 2021.

I have no doubt that H deliberately chose to put W on short commons at a time when he had access to and control of all the family wealth. I find he did this out of his anger with W and I find that it illuminates his attitude to W and what he perceives to be her rights to the family wealth.

When I come to consider outcome in this case, I will bear in mind that at a time when W was trying to provide the children with a stable home, H undermined her from so doing by failing to provide her with fair and adequate interim provision. I remind myself that I am not here to punish either party nor do I take H’s behaviour in this regard to be conduct relevant to the section 25 exercise. But I consider that this is a factor to bear in mind when I consider each party’s post separation contributions.