(“H”) and KB (“W”) married in 2003 and separated in 2017. They had six
was the bass player in a well-known band and W did not work.
received income in five ways:
royalties from the songs written by him (“Stream 1”);
for broadcasts of the band’s songs on radio and TV (“Stream 2”);
percentage of the lead singer’s publishing royalties (“Stream 3”);
share of the recording royalties (“Stream 4”); and
share of ticketing and merchandising income, created by touring (“Stream 5”).
was agreed that W had a sharing interest in Streams 1-4, as they had been
created during the marriage.
was also no dispute about the capital, agreed at £2,754,351 for W and £3,015,113
for H, giving a total of £5,769,464, and both parties were re-housed.
first issue was the value of H’s music income from Streams 2-4 (Stream 1 was
agreed), which was addressed by four witnesses. The valuation methods were
agreed. However, the multipliers and discounts that should be applied and the
matrimonial natures of the streams were disputed.
- The second issue was whether W had a sharing claim
to Stream 5, H’s future earnings from touring.
- The third issue was how H’s child maintenance obligations
should be calculated.
- The fourth and final issue was whether there would
be sufficient capital to meet W’s future income.
addressing the valuation of the income streams Mr Justice Mostyn endorsed the ‘hot-tubbing’ method of giving evidence
. The expert accountants gave their evidence concurrently and occupied the
witness box together. Therefore, the evidence on each topic was given
contemporaneously and not separated by a hiatus. Mostyn J commented that such a
method ‘should be considered for use in
financial remedy cases where competing valuers give evidence’ .
assessing the expert evidence, Mostyn J valued Streams 1-4 at £4,450,693. He used
various multipliers and discounts to reflect the level of risk in the streams, and
to reflect the non-matrimonial nature of Stream 3.
J declined to treat Stream 5 as a matrimonial asset because income derived from
future tours by H playing songs created during the marriage would still be earnings
created after the marriage: ‘The fans are
coming to see the band performing, not to listen to songs being played by a
machine and pumped out of loudspeakers’ .
with the agreed net assets figure, this gave a total of £10,220,158. Mostyn J
applied the equal sharing principle and awarded W £5,110,079.
J confirmed that that when calculating child support the starting point should
be the result of the CMS formula and in this case he found no reason to depart
a result if W were to amortise her Duxbury fund (which was a ‘pre-eminently reasonable’ expectation
), W would initially receive £172,126 pa, plus child support of £50,400 pa,
giving her a total of £222,526 pa. Mostyn J found this would ‘very amply’ meet W’s reasonable needs on
a clean break basis .