C v C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE MOYLAN |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | No. FD05D05744 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 12 July 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Moylan(In Private)
No. FD05D05744
Mr. N. Mostyn QC and Miss. D. Bangay QC (instructed by Levison MeltzerPigott)appearedonbehalfof the Applicant.
Mr. M. Pointer QC and Miss S. Harrison (instructed by Berg Legal) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is my judgment following the hearing of the wife's ancillary relief application. The parties met in 1984, married on 22 nd April 1988 and separated on 27 th September 2005. The husband is now aged 63 (having been born on 17 th May 1944), and the wife is now aged 50 (having been born on 23 rd September 1956).
I am confident that it would surprise most people to hear that the focus of the disputed evidence in this case has been on what occurred in the years
—1988. The perceived forensic purpose of this focus has been two-fold; first, to seek to identify the moment when the parties began cohabiting or became committed to each other, and secondly, having identified that date, to seek to identify what wealth the husband owned at that date for the purpose of establishing the extent of his pre-marital wealth.
Each party blames the other for this. The husband saying it was caused by the wife asserting that he had no significant wealth when the relationship started. The wife saying it was caused by the husband asserting that he was extremely wealthy at the date of the marriage.
I appreciate that certain passages in the speeches in Miller and McFarlane might seem to require almost an account of the sources of the family's wealth. However, these passages have to be put in context and, in particular, have to be applied in the framework of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It would, in my view, be a very regrettable step if parties were obliged or even encouraged to conduct a financial account after a long marriage. I do not consider that this can be what the House of Lords intended. I will return to this later in my judgment.
At this hearing the wife has been represented by Mr. Mostyn QC and Miss Bangay QC, and the husband by Mr. Pointer QC and Miss Harrison. The wife's case simply expressed is that she is entitled to half the current wealth, being approximately £22.2 million, as the vast bulk of it has been generated during the marriage or since the start of the parties’ relationship, and there exists no justification for it being shared other than equally between the parties.
The husband's case also simply expressed is that the wife's award should be limited to that required to enable her to meet her needs (generously assessed) as a result of the husband having already accumulated considerable, if not most of his, wealth by the date of the marriage or the commencement of the parties’ relationship.
History
The husband was born on 17 th May 1944. He graduated from the University of Birmingham in 1965 with a degree in mathematical physics. He went to work for English Electric Computers in Stoke on Trent and then, in 1969, moved to Manchester where he worked for the Stock Exchange, running their computer system outside London.
As well as being employed, the husband began to purchase residential properties. In the early 1970s the husband left his employment and began working full time in the property business. In 1976 he entered into a partnership with two brothers. They principally bought and sold residential properties, but they also bought a trading estate in Salford and an office building in Manchester.
In 1980 the husband left the partnership, receiving £50,000. He then set up in business through two companies, Mersey Estates Limited (which was incorporated on 24 th July 1980) and Trawden Forest Properties Limited (which was incorporated on 24 th September 1980). These companies still exist, but for many years they have been subsidiaries of a holding company called Armstrong Brooks (which was incorporated in 1988).
Trawden and Mersey were set up to conduct property dealing. Over the years of their existence they have bought and sold, to quote from the husband's replies to questionnaire, “hundreds of individual properties”. The main focus of the business, at least in the early years, was the purchase of large vacant industrial estates, which were then divided into units, usually simply on paper, and sold on as soon as possible.
I will deal with the nature of the husband's business in a little more detail in due course. But, for example, in the first year Trawden had a turnover of £115,000 and made a profit of £13,000, after directors’ emoluments and management fees of £22,800. The turnover reflected the sale of properties which had cost £64,000, a substantial increase within one year.
In his affidavit of 4 th August 2006, the husband says:
“I discovered that there was an enormous demand for small freehold factories and developed a lucrative business buying large vacant sites all over the UK and selling them off in smaller sections. During the period 1980–1987 I purchased a major factory complex every three weeks”.
13 By 1984 the husband was living at 40 Cavendish Road, Ellesmere Park, Eccles, a property he had bought in 1983, and was running his business through Trawden and Mersey Estates. A large number of documents had been produced dealing with the husband's then financial circumstances, and I will return to these later in my judgment.
The wife was born on 23 rd September 1956. She graduated from Bristol University in 1979, followed by an MA in Medieval Studies and a PhD in Medieval Literature at York University. By 1984 she was living in a property in York, which she had bought in 1983 for £15,500 with a loan from her parents and a mortgage. She was working as a freelance writer, teaching MA students at Leeds University, marking A Level papers, designing book covers and making woodcuts. It is not suggested other than that she was earning only relatively modest amounts.
The parties met in 1984, when the wife answered an advertisement placed in the Guardian by the husband, which read:
“Wealthy eccentric privately printing humorous book needs well paid freelance help from someone with literary and publishing experience”.
I am not aware whether the wife, in fact, ever undertook the work referred to in the advertisement, but the parties started their relationship.
At this stage I propose to set out a broad account of the history of the parties’ relationship and marriage. Later in this judgment I will deal in more detail with the development of their relationship in the years 1984—1988.
In 1985 the wife sold her house in York and bought a house in Salford, at 1 Gore Avenue. She moved her possessions there in September 1985. In October 1986 the parties went to the United States with the intention of emigrating there. A house was purchased in America at the end of 1986. They travelled to and from the United States until July 1987, when the planned emigration was abandoned and the parties returned to live in England.
The parties do not agree about their engagement. The husband says there was no formal engagement. The wife says they became engaged in September 1987. They married on 22 nd April 1988 at Gretna Green. The first matrimonial home was 40 Cavendish Road. They then moved to a property called Vigox House in Manchester, before moving to their final matrimonial home, Parklands. This property was purchased in 1994 for £880,000.
19 The husband says that after the boom years of about 1980—1988 the “opportunities for dealing stalled”. His major business vehicle is now a holding company called Armstrong Brooks Limited, which was incorporated on 30 th June 1988. The wife owns a nominal one share, but the company is effectively owned by the husband. Trawden and Mersey Estates, as I have said, are subsidiaries. Whatever the precise position over the intervening
years—and there was also a foray into pubs, which ended in 2003 when they were sold—approximately 90 per cent of Armstrong Brooks’ current gross assets are held in cash.
As so often seems to happen as a result of litigation, each party, to differing degrees, has made allegations essentially about the conduct of the other. Again, each side blames the other. From my perspective, both are to some extent responsible. There was, in my judgment, no justification for the husband relying on the matters he set out in that part of the form E which deals with bad behaviour or conduct, even though he made it clear that this related to the breakdown of the marriage and not to the wife's conduct during the marriage. Likewise, I can see no justification for the wife also relying on this paragraph by the general incorporation of the statement she annexed to her form E. This statement was an unfocused document, but it included allegations about the husband's behaviour which were as unnecessary as the allegations he had made.
This pattern continued in the parties’ respective affidavits, with yet more unnecessary and, no doubt, hurtful allegations. I make it clear that none of the allegations made by either party about the other's behaviour has had any effect on my decision and, in my view, none of them should ever have been made.
I have heard oral evidence from the husband and the wife and have read those parts of the bundle to which I have been referred. I have also received comprehensive written and oral submissions from the advocates for each of the parties. I have, of course, taken all the matters raised by them into account when reaching my decision.
Pre-marital Relationship and Wealth
I turn now to deal with the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N v F
...was simply not sustainable for the future (see [7]–[9], [14], [45], [47]–[48], [50], below). Cases referred to in judgmentC v C[2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR Charman v Charman[2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 2 FCR 217, [2007] 1 FLR 1246. FZ v SZ (Ancillary Relief: Conduct: Valuations)[2010......
-
S v Ag (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize)
...was not applicable (see [5], [15], [21]–[22], [29], [34]–[39], below). Cases referred to in judgmentAnastasio (1981) FLC 91–093. C v C[2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 8. Charman v Charman[2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 2 FCR 217, [2007] 1 FLR 1246. Cowan v Cowan[2001] EWCA Civ 679, [2001] 2......
-
XW v XH (no 1)
...[2014] 2 FLR 251. B v S (financial remedy: marital property regime)[2012] EWHC 265 (Fam), [2012] 2 FCR 335, [2012] 2 FLR 502. C v C[2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 8. Chai v Peng[2017] EWHC 792 (Fam), [2017] 3 FCR 29, [2018] 1 FLR 248. Charman v Charman (no 4)[2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007]......
-
S Represented by: Mr John Ison (to whom the court granted right of audience) v AG Represented by: Mr Cassio Caseres (to whom the court granted right of audience) MR (who did not appear and was not represented) (2nd Respondent)
...into the facts of those cases – White itself, GW v. RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality [2003] 2 FLR 108 and C v. C [2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 8– reveals that in each there was a substantial element of matrimonial as well as non-matrimonial property. To be fair, a fu......