Appeal by a husband to the Court of Appeal against the decision made at the final hearing in a financial remedies case. Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482

A husband brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal following the final hearing in a financial remedies case. This is because he was initially made to pay a lump sum of £1.4 million to his wife on the basis that he “comprehensively” failed to provide proper disclosure of his assets.

The husband’s primary argument was that, in failing to even attempt to quantify the scale of the husband’s undisclosed resources, the judge had erred in law.

At the final hearing, the husband had contended that the wife should receive a lump sum of £960,000, whilst the wife sought a payment of £1.5 million. The judge found largely in the wife’s favour and based his reasoning on an analysis of the wife’s needs.

Because of this, the husband argued that the judge should have made some attempt to quantify his assets and that the award of £1.4 million was not properly reasoned.

The judgment detailed the existing case law in relation to non-disclosure and the courts’ approach to it. It was noted that there are different types of non-disclosure but focuses on cases in which there is a “broad failure to comply with the disclosure obligations in respect of a party’s financial resources”.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal but set out some general guidance in relation to judgments in financial remedy cases, saying at paragraph 114:

“In summary, as a matter of course:

(i) Every financial remedy judgment should clearly set out the judge’s conclusions in respect of each of the relevant section 25 factors as part of the substantive structure of the judgment and/or by way of a summary. This is not for the purposes of demonstrating that the judge has had regard to those factors, although it will do this, but so that the parties and anyone else reading the judgment can easily understand the judge’s conclusions as to these factors which, in every case, underpin the ultimate award;

(ii) This includes by providing, even in a non-disclosure case, a schedule “of the parties’ visible net assets”, to adopt the words from Behzadi v Behzadi, even though in such a case this will comprise only part of the parties’ resources; and

(iii) Every financial remedy judgment should clearly set out how the award has been calculated.

This is because a fair outcome in financial remedy cases is in part process driven, as in applying section 25, but also significantly outcome driven in the sense of explaining the basis of the award either by reference to needs or sharing.”

For more information, get in touch with us today on 0203 146 3549 / email: [email protected]

Disclaimer

All our articles are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information provided.

Like this article?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Information about our own complaints process, raising concerns to the Legal Ombudsman and to us

We want to give you the best possible service. However, if at any point you become unhappy or concerned about the service we provided then you should inform us immediately, so that we can do our best to resolve the problem.

In the first instance it may be helpful to contact the person who is working on your case to discuss your concerns and we will do our best to resolve any issues at this stage. If you would like to make a formal complaint, then you can read our full complaints procedure here. Making a complaint will not affect how we handle your case.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority can help you if you are concerned about our behaviour. This could be for things like dishonesty, taking or losing your money or treating you unfairly because of your age, a disability or other characteristic. 

You can raise your concerns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

What do to if we cannot resolve your complaint

The Legal Ombudsman can help you if we are unable to resolve your complaint ourselves. They will look at your complaint independently and it will not affect how we handle your case.

Before accepting a complaint for investigation, the Legal Ombudsman will check that you have tried to resolve your complaint with us first. If you have, then you must take your complaint to the Legal Ombudsman:

  • Within six months of receiving a final response to your complaint; and,
  • No more than six years from the date of act/omission; or
  • No more than three years from when you should reasonably have known there was cause for complaint.
  • If you would like more information about the Legal Ombudsman, please contact them.

 Contact details

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By closing this message, you consent to our cookies on this device in accordance with our cookie policy unless you have disabled them.