ZZ21D58773 - [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)

Fecha: 25-Jun-2025

The witnesses

The witnesses

36.

H presents as a confident, charismatic and charming man but he is also an intimidating person. When cross examined about his alleged assault of the process server, he told an illuminating story about an attempt made by two Algerian street robbers to mug him in Mayfair. They were, as is not uncommon in that area, interested in taking his watch. They did not succeed and he told me that they came off worst. He explained that, if he had assaulted the process server, ‘he would have known it’; his implication was that such an assault would have been far worse than that described by the process server. The police were called by the process server. They took no action against H. On the balance of probabilities, I find that H did assault the process server as described by the process server and that he did so because he was so angry with W and so frustrated by this litigation.

37.

It was also interesting to see how H dealt with cross examination which demonstrated that he had lied. He was taken to his statement made in answer to W’s application for interim provision. In one paragraph he rebutted allegations made by W about holidays he had taken. In his written evidence he said:

‘h. Ibiza, Mid 2022 — Friend’s wedding – I only paid for the flights the hotel was paid for as part of the wedding’

Mr Thorpe KC took him to bank statements which demonstrated that some £13,000 had been spent by H on a hotel in Ibiza at that time. H explained that was entirely consistent with his written evidence which only addressed the stay in the hotel paid for by the hosts. It was a masterclass by H in what might nowadays be termed ‘gaslighting’. He said it calmly and seemed convinced that I would consider it a true answer. In the same context, i.e. holidays, he told me several times that, if W had told him she wanted to go on nice holidays, he would have paid for them. He explained that she didn’t ask so that he could be cross examined about this failing. I do not accept either proposition.

38.

I have absolutely no doubt that H came to court to present to me what he considered to be a favourable case rather than simply telling me the truth.

39.

W was a confident and dignified witness. She was able to hold her ground in cross examination. As a result of the manner in which H has litigated this case, she has approached certain topics such as H’s alleged conduct in a muddled way. Many of her allegations are not credible or sensible and it is a shame that she has been unable to let go of the more obviously absurd elements of her case. Her belief about H nefariously moving assets from ABC to DEF makes no sense. Her application for a production order made prior to the PTR was nonsensical. However, standing back from some of these points and looking at W’s evidence in the round I found her to be an essentially honest witness who came to court to tell me the truth. In all most every respect, save those which I will identify later, I find that, where H and W’s evidence is different, I prefer W’s account.

40.

Ms Hart’s oral and written evidence was, as one might expect, of the very highest quality. She identified in her report the many shortcomings it contained as a result, largely, of H’s failure to supply her with information. I am very grateful to her for her helpful evidence and explaining to me how I might adjust her report to allow for my findings as to the value of various chattels and/or items on the fixed asset registers.

41.

I will turn now to a number of matters which I must address before dealing with the computation of assets, the parties’ open positions, how I should approach the funds received by H from the sale of his LM1 shares and the outcome which I will impose.