MB v EB

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a married couple, the Plaintiff (wife) aged 63 and the Defendant (husband) aged 58, who married in April 2000. They had no children. The Plaintiff is a businesswoman from a wealthy family, and the Defendant is an artist with a history of severe health difficulties, including a cerebral haemorrhage shortly after their marriage. The parties did not cohabit before marriage. After the Defendant's illness and convalescence abroad, the parties lived intermittently together and apart, with a separation occurring in 2004 when the Plaintiff remained abroad and the Defendant returned to England.

Following the separation, the parties maintained an unusual and enmeshed relationship, with intermittent contact and financial dealings, including a separation agreement signed in 2011. The Defendant purchased a flat in 2011 funded by the Plaintiff under this agreement, and they became co-owners of the freehold of that property in 2013. The Defendant had subsequent relationships, and the Plaintiff remained financially supported by her family. The parties’ relationship deteriorated further by 2016, culminating in the Defendant issuing divorce proceedings in 2017, with a decree nisi granted in 2019.

The procedural history includes a preliminary issue hearing directed by Mrs Justice Roberts in November 2018 to determine three issues: the length of the marriage, the impact of the 2011 separation agreement, and whether there is any marital acquest.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What was the length of the marriage for the purposes of the financial remedy proceedings?
2. What is the impact and effect of the separation agreement entered into in 2011?
3. Is there any marital acquest to be considered in the financial proceedings?

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The separation agreement is vitiated ab initio due to threats, duress, undue influence, pressure, or abuse of dominant position.
• Alternatively, it would be unfair to hold the Defendant to the agreement because the parties did not in fact separate as contemplated and holding him to the agreement would leave him in real need.
• The Defendant contends that the agreement was not fairly entered into and that his needs were not properly considered or met.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant initiated the process leading to the agreement and the terms were those he himself sought.
• The Defendant had independent legal advice and was aware of the implications of the agreement.
• The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s needs do not arise from the marriage but from his own psychological makeup and inability to support himself.
• The Plaintiff offered a lump sum to clear costs and provide for the Defendant’s needs, which was rejected.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed factual and legal analysis of the parties’ relationship, the separation agreement, and the financial circumstances. It found the parties separated in 2004 in the sense that the marital partnership ended, although emotional involvement persisted until 2016. The court emphasized that the parties lived apart, had separate homes with restricted access, and financial independence from each other after 2004. The sexual relationship ended by 2004 and the Defendant engaged in relationships elsewhere.

Regarding the separation agreement of 2011, the court noted it was initiated by the Defendant, reflected his own proposals, and was entered into with independent legal advice and full awareness of its implications. There was no evidence of duress, undue influence, or exploitation of a dominant position by the Plaintiff. The lack of financial disclosure was a mutual and agreed choice, permissible under established case law.

The court applied the principles from Radmacher and related authorities, emphasizing respect for autonomy and the need for fairness. It found the agreement broadly fair and consistent with the parties’ intentions at the time, noting that the Defendant’s capital needs were met by provision of a property and that his income needs, while potentially unmet, were primarily his own responsibility, linked to his personal circumstances rather than the marriage.

The court acknowledged the Defendant’s ongoing financial difficulties but lacked sufficient evidence or submissions to make a definitive ruling on further provision. It stressed the importance of a swift and cost-effective resolution of any future claims.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

• The court held that the parties’ marital partnership ended in 2004, although emotional ties endured until 2016.
• The 2011 separation agreement was valid and binding, with no grounds for vitiation except a possible argument regarding unmet needs.
• There was no marital acquest during or after the marriage.

Implications: The court reserved the financial consequences of these findings for a later stage. The decision directly affects the parties by confirming the validity of the separation agreement and fixing the end of the marital partnership at 2004, which will influence any future financial remedy claims. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case.