Consideration of division of capital where H’s funds were predominantly inherited, and held in a joint family structure; review of Thomas v Thomas resources and variation of nuptial settlements.
Facts
- Both parties came from wealthy Saudi Arabian families.
- Much of H’s wealth was inherited from his father, and was found to be held equally between H, his mother and his sister. This included the FMH, which was formally owned by an offshore family company.
- However, a nuptial settlement, capable of variation, was found to exist in relation to the license to occupy the FMH granted to W and H.
- In total H owned £12.4m to £15.6m as his share under the family arrangement, which was illiquid and inherited, with an additional £1.6m of personal liquid funds.
- Both parties ran Thomas v Thomas arguments, W claiming that H’s family would allow him to meet any award from their joint inherited wealth, and H noting W’s father’s significant financial support for her, and her automatic right to inherit from him under Saudi law.
Held
- H and W agreed that this was a needs case, and Roberts J ordered that their needs be met by a variation of the settlement of the license to occupy to allow W to continue occupying rent free until her death, remarriage or the death of her father, along with a £2m lump sum.