Judge orders equal split in £9m divorce, with £897k lump sum to wife

The Family Court has ordered an equal division of the couple’s matrimonial assets, leaving each with £3.44m, and requiring the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of £897,092.

Amy Fallows Senior Associate Solicitor & Head of our Family Law team reports on this case.

The parties, anonymised as OS (wife) and DT (husband), married in 2014, have three children and separated in September 2023 after careers in London’s finance sector.

Under the order, the husband will keep the former matrimonial home, while the wife’s share reflects the costs of buying a similar property, including an estimated £150,000 for stamp duty and legal fees. The court directed an equal split of joint cash and investments and set out how other assets should be allocated to achieve parity.

His Honour Judge Edward Hess said fairness required a broad approach to post-separation income.

Salary paid into the joint account up to October 2024 remained in the pool, given it funded family spending, whereas later cash bonuses and a January 2025 RSU award were treated as post-separation accrual and excluded from sharing unless needed. “Unilaterally changing the status quo in November 2024… should not… alter that,” he said.

Most of the husband’s non-matrimonial claims were rejected, including his attempt to ring-fence the proceeds of a pre-marital London flat, which had been used for the family home and joint accounts and was therefore “matrimonialised”. However, an inheritance of £179,147 was accepted as non-matrimonial, and there will be no pension sharing.

On children’s finances, the judge made no order for child periodical payments at this stage but directed that school fees be paid 75% by the husband and 25% by the wife, with liberty to vary if circumstances change.

The court examined sums the husband said were owed to his father, finding the key interest claims were either repaid or “soft” debts and should be treated as nil for the schedule. Although disclosure around family monies was described as opaque — the husband’s stance being characterisable as “‘just trust me, why are you troubling me with these unnecessary questions’” — the judge declined to penalise either side in the asset table for costs, noting heavy expenditure by both.

For more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law please contact Amy on 01228 516666 or click here to send her an email.