13th July 2016
Consideration of the quantification element (‘Stage II’) of a ‘big money’ application under Part III of the MFPA 1984.
Facts
- H and W were both Russian nationals who had married in Moscow in 1997. H was extremely wealthy; his money derived from his philanthropic father. The parties had three children together (18, 17 and 15) and moved to London in 2004. H and W separated in 2008.
- In 2009 a Russian court approved a financial agreement between the parties which provided W with approximately US$10m as full and final settlement in “all countries of the world.”
- Between 2012-2013 H received appointments of c.US$36m from his father’s trust, increasing H’s wealth to c.£33m at the date of the hearing.
- In 2014 W brought a claim in England under Part III of the 1984 Act, confined to her financial ‘needs’. At ‘Stage I’ Roberts J concluded that it was appropriate to make an English order (see Z v Z and Others [2016] EWHC 911 (Fam)).
- In advance of Stage II, H had agreed to pay the rent on W’s property in Kensington so as to allow W to remain living there until their youngest child completed tertiary education in 2022.
Held
- Roberts J ordered H to pay £2.5m as a housing fund for W’s relocation in 2022 and £1.1m in capitalised spousal maintenance (after taking account of the assets already held by W).
- The judge also ordered H to pay periodical payments of £35,000 per annum per child for the two children who lived with W, until they began living independently. H had already agreed to meet the children’s school fees – a total of c.£75,000 per annum.
- Roberts J found that there had been a tactical element in W delaying her claim (she had waited until her flat in Moscow had sold so as to increase her connections to this jurisdiction). This resulted in a more conservative assessment of W’s future needs.
- The fact that the lion’s share of H’s wealth had derived from his father after the parties’ separation acted as a further limiting factor on the assessment of W’s needs.
- The parties’ agreement was also an important factor in considering W’s needs. It had not, however, addressed W’s housing and income needs after she was to move out of the house in Kensington. Since there was potential for continued unfairness, and the Russian court had not been able to consider all elements of W’s potential claims, the situation was distinguished from that in De Renee v Galbraith-Marten [2016] EWCA Civ 537.
