Judges will award favourably if dating is disclosed

On the face of it,
AB v CD was a relatively uncomplicated divorce hearing. The couple had been married for nine years and together for 13. They started a business together and adopted a child. They spent time renovating a property given to them by the husband’s parents. Granted there were some unusual aspects – the husband’s wealthy farming family and the fact that the couple separated
in the middle of an adoption process, with the result that the husband ended up adopting
the child alone.

However, Justice Mostyn, while calculating the wife’s financial settlement, took her new relationship into consideration
in his ruling. But he did not tell women to avoid dating before divorce – he simply noted that such relationships have implications for settlements, phrasing this observation with
an ornate classical allusion:

“Relationships like this
always are a significant fly in
the ointment in the assessment
of need. One cannot make assumptions, if it is not full blown cohabitation akin to marriage, that it will grow into that, because if it does not the wife may be left stranded between Scylla and Charybdis if the assumption is wrongly made.

“On the other hand, if one makes a needs assessment on the basis that she is a single woman and she soon cohabits, then the paying party in the ancillary relief proceeding can rightfully feel significantly aggrieved.”

Ancillary relief is an older version of what is now more commonly called a financial remedy, the settlement reached by a couple following divorce. And by ‘need’, L J Mostyn of course means the financial resources each party in a marriage will require following divorce. He still went on to award her £250,000, hardly a small sum. But he did so noting, “I cannot ignore the existence of the relationship with Mr P”, and declaring that if the relationship had not begun, he would have doubts as to whether the sum awarded would be sufficient to meet her needs.

L J Mostyn carefully notes the dilemma facing judges in such
a scenario. An award based on
the assumption that the wife will remain a single woman can seem quite unfair if she sets up home with a new partner. But an award based on the assumption that
she will set up home with a new partner can be equally problematic.

Rebound relationships are quite common among divorcing couples, however, very few are remotely serious; they are a distraction, some fun, a shelter from the storm of their separation. The wife’s error was in the secrecy. The relationship only came to light following an investigation – she did not tell
the court about it herself, and
the discovery may well have
been a moment of triumph for the husband’s lawyers.

Had the wife instead told the court and her husband the full story, I expect she would have walked away with more money. But she didn’t, and so, exercising his discretion, the judge made
his ruling. SJ