B v B

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, referred to as Petitioner and Respondent, were married in February 2016. The Petitioner issued an initial divorce petition in June 2016 which was later withdrawn, followed by further contested divorce proceedings issued in April 2018. The Master stayed the first petition in March 2021 and granted leave to issue a second petition in July 2021, which appears to have proceeded as an undefended suit. Ancillary relief proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner in March 2021 but were not heard until November 2024 before a High Court judge, after various related litigation including a Mareva injunction and contempt proceedings. The case was marked by acrimony and significant delays, with no financial dispute resolution hearing conducted prior to the High Court hearing.

The High Court judge made an order on 13 December 2024 requiring the Respondent to pay the Petitioner a lump sum of £375,000 by 14 March 2025 in full and final settlement of all financial claims, discharging previous periodical payments and ordering the Respondent to continue paying school fees for the child born in 2017. The Petitioner appeals the lump sum order, arguing it is insufficient to meet her housing needs and seeks to adduce fresh evidence on that issue. The Respondent disputes the appeal and maintains the order should stand.

Subsequent to the judgment, the Petitioner’s solicitors confirmed the statutory charge may be applied to the lump sum, and an order for possession of the former matrimonial home was made, requiring the Petitioner to vacate. The Respondent has failed to pay maintenance since December 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court judge erred in the exercise of discretion by making a lump sum order of £375,000 without a needs-based analysis of the Petitioner’s rehousing requirements.
2. Whether fresh evidence regarding the Petitioner’s housing needs should be admitted and considered on appeal.
3. Whether the judge’s decision to discharge periodical payments and order a clean break settlement was appropriate in light of the child’s welfare and the prenuptial agreement.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The lump sum awarded by the judge is insufficient to enable the Petitioner to rehouse herself and the child adequately.
• The judge failed to conduct or base his order on a proper needs-based analysis, including the location and cost of suitable housing.
• The judge did not provide reasons explaining how the lump sum would meet the Petitioner’s needs, appearing instead to base the sum on a percentage of net equity.
• The preferable option would have been a property adjustment order transferring the matrimonial home to the Petitioner to allow an orderly sale and use of the net equity.
• Fresh evidence submitted post-judgment demonstrates substantial costs and housing requirements not before the trial court.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s order should stand as he heard evidence and made factual findings that cannot be challenged on appeal.
• The Petitioner can rehouse with the lump sum awarded and need not live in the location she prefers.
• The Petitioner is expected to live with a new partner, undermining her claim of housing need.
• The Respondent represented willingness to raise funds to buy out the Petitioner, although this may be affected by the possession order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal recognized that the High Court judge had properly exercised his discretion and applied the correct legal principles, including the enforcement of the prenuptial agreement subject to fairness and child welfare considerations. The judge had heard extensive evidence over two days and made factual findings, including adverse findings on forensic accountancy evidence and on the allegation of coercion into the prenuptial agreement.

The judge’s order for a lump sum payment represented approximately 60% of the equity in the matrimonial home and was intended as a clean break settlement facilitating the purchase of a new home for the Petitioner and child. The judge rejected both parties’ proposals for property adjustment orders as unrealistic and emphasized the welfare of the child as the primary consideration.

The Court of Appeal noted procedural deficiencies, including the absence of a financial dispute resolution hearing and the late hearing of ancillary relief after significant delay. The fresh evidence relating to housing needs and costs was not before the trial court, limiting the appellate court’s ability to consider it fully. The court highlighted the escalating costs of litigation disproportionate to the assets and the importance of a needs-based analysis in cases involving children, referencing the recent authority AH v BH.

Given the omission of a needs-based analysis and the emergence of fresh evidence, the Court concluded that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for further consideration. The judge was found blameless, having dealt with the case expeditiously and correctly on the evidence before him. The Court affirmed the no order as to costs made below and dismissed the appeal on costs grounds.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal ALLOWED IN PART the appeal by remitting the case to the High Court for a needs-based analysis and adjudication on the fresh evidence concerning the Petitioner’s rehousing requirements. The Court affirmed the order that both parties bear their own costs at first instance and dismissed the appeal against the costs order.

The parties were granted 14 days to decide whether to proceed with the remittal or accept the existing order, and the Respondent was given 14 days to propose payment of outstanding maintenance. The Court emphasized that the possession order for the matrimonial home and mounting costs create urgency for resolution. No new precedent was established; the decision underscores the importance of a proper needs-based assessment in ancillary relief cases involving children and the limited scope for appellate interference absent procedural irregularities or legal error.