We are a *knowledge business

In June 2024, HHJ Edward Hess sitting in the Central Family Court handed down his judgment in the case of RM V WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B) ­­– a complex financial remedies case concerning the division of matrimonial property, and to what extent real property had been ‘matrimonialised’.

Jim Richards and Eleanor Wood of Lawrence Stephens acted on behalf of the husband, instructing Jenna Lucas of Pump Court Chambers.

The case centred around four properties owned by the respondent husband, with the wife arguing that she should receive 50% of the equity of all four properties. She argued this on the basis that these properties – owned by the husband prior to the marriage and held in his sole name – had become ‘matrimonialised’ by virtue of serving as family homes throughout their marriage. HHJ Hess found that one of these properties had never served as a family home, and as such had not been ‘matrimonialised’. The wife contended that she should receive 50% of the equity of the three remaining properties if HHJ Hess view was that this asset was not matrimonalised.

In considering what the wife’s award should be, HHJ Hess concluded in paragraph 37 of his judgment that “there is justification here for departing in the husband’s direction from an equal division of the net equity in the three homes which have been family homes. My view is that the fair answer here is for the wife to be awarded the amount that meets her needs.”

HHJ Hess ultimately assessed the wife’s needs to be less than 50% of the equity in the three ‘matrimonialised’ properties and granted her award on this basis accordingly.

Eleanor Wood, Co-Head of Family at Lawrence Stephens and solicitor for the husband, commented: “We are pleased to have secured a successful outcome for our client in a complex case which presented several issues which needed to be considered and dealt with at various stages.

“This highlights the importance of a well-prepared case to identify how the assets were used and where they originated when determining how they should be divided upon separation. The outcome is a fair one. It reflects the needs of the wife in conjunction with how the assets were used or matrimonialised, and that it is not always a simple sharing principle being applied.”

The full judgment can be read here.