Central Family Court decision

In June 2024, HHJ Edward Hess of the Central Family Court delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B), a complex financial remedies case concerning the division of matrimonial property and the concept of ‘matrimonialisation’ of assets.

Case Overview

The case revolved around four properties owned by the respondent husband before the marriage. The wife argued that she should be entitled to 50% of the equity in all four properties, claiming they had become ‘matrimonialised’ due to their use as family homes throughout the marriage.

Court's Findings

HHJ Hess determined that only three of the properties had served as family homes and therefore could be considered ‘matrimonialised’. The fourth property, which had never been used as a family home, was excluded from this classification.

In his judgment, HHJ Hess addressed the division of the equity in the three ‘matrimonialised’ properties. He noted in paragraph 37 of his ruling that while there was some justification for deviating from an equal division of net equity, the fair approach was to award the wife an amount that met her needs rather than an equal share.

Final Award

HHJ Hess concluded that the wife’s financial needs did not justify a 50% share of the equity in the three properties. Instead, he awarded her a lesser amount, reflecting her actual needs and the matrimonial use of the properties rather than an equal division of the assets.

Eleanor Wood, Co-Head of Family at Lawrence Stephens and solicitor for the husband, commented on the outcome:

“We are pleased to have secured a successful result for our client in a case that involved numerous complex issues. This case underscores the importance of meticulously preparing to demonstrate how assets were used and their origins when determining their division upon separation. The judgment reflects a fair approach, aligning with the wife’s needs and the actual matrimonial use of the properties, rather than a simplistic equal sharing principle.”

The full judgment can be reviewed here.

Copyright & permissions