Colborne v Colborne
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LORD JUSTICE BURNETT
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal addresses the division of assets and associated costs following a divorce. The court upheld the judge's approach to asset valuation and division, adjusted timelines and practical arrangements for the matrimonial home and modified the costs order. The judgment scrutinized H’s failure in financial disclosure, ensuring an equitable asset division and child welfare considerations.
Judgment
Black LJ:
The subject matter of the appeal
This appeal concerns the division of capital assets on divorce and also the costs order made at the end of the ancillary relief proceedings. It turns on its own facts and does not give rise to any issues of principle.
The decision of HHJ Simon Oliver
On 29 May 2014, HHJ Simon Oliver made an ancillary relief order dealing with the financial affairs of the appellant and his wife, to whom I will refer hereafter as H and W.
The parties were married in July 1995, having lived together since 1986. W is now 60 years old and H is 53. They have 3 children. The eldest, a boy, is 19, and lives independently. The twins, girls, are 16. They live with H in what was the matrimonial home.
In March 2013, W began divorce proceedings. Decree nisi was granted on 12 May 2014.
The parties separated some time prior to the divorce but there was a dispute between them as to when. H contended that the marriage was over in 2001 and that the separation occurred then but Judge Oliver rejected that. He found that the marriage ended in 2010 although the final physical separation only took place in 2011. The marriage therefore endured for 15 years and the relationship for 24 years. The judge categorised it as a long marriage.
H considered that W had made little, if any, contribution to the family. His case was that she made no financial contribution and gave him no support, that he single-handedly brought up the children, and that her conduct caused emotional and psychological trauma. The judge did not accept this. He found that W contributed equally to the marriage in so far as H allowed (§52). He was very critical of H (§11), finding that he was the one applying emotional and psychological pressure, to his daughters and to W. He said that H was “a man who expects to get what he wants” and that he would “stop at nothing to ensure that he does”. He said that the allegations H made against W were “spiteful, wicked and done deliberately to upset W, both previously and now”.
Neither party was earning an income although W was in receipt of benefits. It appears that since H sold his business in 2007, realising several million pounds, the family had lived off capital. H used to be an investment banker and also worked in IT. The judge found (§41) that he was resourceful and intelligent and had no doubt that he would make “decent money” after the case was over. W “came from a background in advertising, account director and two busines