Horne v Horne

Lord Justice Thorpe:

This is an appeal from the order of HHJ Corrie. It reflects a judgment that he handed down on 8 December 2008 in the Oxford County Court after a one-hour hearing on 4 December. Permission to appeal was given by the judge himself. He said that there was a point of general principle and importance in the development of the substantive law. He pointed to the fact that there was a tension between the need for certainty in litigation and the general collapse of the financial market, which was going to impact on a large number of specific cases. Secondly he said that the case of Heard v Heard might be said not to fit comfortably with other reported cases in this area.

Let me turn to the background. Mr and Mrs Horne separated in November 2006 and their post-breakdown finance was the subject of a judgment delivered by District Judge Gatter on 14 November 2007. The order that resulted provided for the husband to retain the family business on the basis that the wife should transfer her interest in the shareholding in the company to him. The wife was to take the final matrimonial home, supplemented by a lump sum of £180,000. The object of the District Judge’s scheme was to bring the parties to financial equality. It is important to note the detail of the husband’s obligation to pay the sum of £180,000. It appears in paragraph 4 of the order. It is to this effect:

“A lump sum of £180,000 by instalments as follows:

a) £100,000 on the date of completion of the sale of the former matrimonial home; and

b) £80,000 on 14 May 2008 or date of completion of the sale, whichever is later.”

This approach to equality was not one that the District Judge herself would naturally have adopted absent the submission of the parties. I take up a citation from her judgment at paragraph 47 to this effect:

“However, both parties are absolutely adamant that they do not want that to happen. Mr Horne is taking what the wife’s counsel calls the ‘liquid risk-bearing assets’ and Mrs Horne the ‘liquid non-risk-bearing assets’. I am not really being given the opportunity to divide like with like. I do take on board that the company on the face of it is illiquid and certainly while it continues in that there is then an argument for treating it differently. On the other hand it is valued by its assets only and the main asset is that. There is therefore unlikely to be much risk in that valuation. This is not a valuation done on profit where it is subject to the profits going