Finances on divorce – Judge allowed to make an order that doesn’t meet Wife’s needs where there aren’t sufficient assets to meet both parties needs

Butler v Butler [2023] EWHC 2453 (Fam)

This case provides an important reminder to all financial remedy practitioners about the fact that where a judge concludes that a case is a needs case, this does not mean that they must make an order that satisfies both parties’ needs. Family practitioners will all be acutely aware of the many cases in which there are sufficient assets to meet the parties needs individually and those of any children. This will be the right outcome even when this means there will be an invading of non-matrimonial property.

However, this is not a rule that binds each and every case and this case fell into a different category where the assets were insufficient to meet the needs of both parties.

By way of a background, the original case was heard by Recorder Anderson and the facts of the case are that the Husband was a 64 year old caretaker. The Wife was 53 and had serious health conditions. The Wife was reliant on Universal Credits and lived with her daughter from a previous relationship and the parties son who was 16.

Recorder Anderson made a finding that the marriage was 6 years in length and from the end of 2009, they lived together as a matter of convenience until the Wife issued divorce proceedings in 2020.

The Husband inherited a tenanted property from his Father in 2007 and this was sold in 2015. The Husband used the net proceeds to purchase a home for himself.

The assets of this case comprised of the net equity in the Husband’s property of circa £397,000 and an ISA of the Husband of £10,000. The Husband had liabilities of nearly £30,000 and a small pension that was in payment. The Wife had land in Jamaica worth in the region of £15,000, £1,150 in bank accounts and liabilities in advance of £6,000.

Understandably, this case had a key issue of the parties future housing needs. The Wife sought a house of £300,000 in East London. This would force the sale of the Husband’s property and render him effectively homeless. Recorder Anderson found that the Husband’s property was a non-matrimonial asset and also found the Wife’s housing needs to be closer to £400,000. Resultantly, Recorder Anderson ordered the Husband to make a lump sum payment £58,000 that the Husband could raise in the form of equity release.

The Wife sought to appeal the decision of Recorder Anderson. Moor J, dismissed the Wife’s Appeal as Recorder Anderson was entitled to make the order and Husband’s non-matrimonial property should not be invaded further. Once again, this is a reminder that where a judge concludes that a case is a needs case, this does not mean that they must make an order that satisfies both parties’ needs

Henry Chambers can take instructions from both solicitor Firms and members of the public. If you would like to discuss how we may be able to assist, please do not hesitate to email us at info@henry-chambers.com