Warring couple criticised by family judge
A family judge has criticised the behaviour of a warring couple who ran up £2.7m in legal bills during fraught divorce proceedings.
The American couple, who started married life penniless, amassed a vast fortune by setting up an IT firm, Confluence Corporation, and had homes in the UK, US and Turks and Caicos Islands. The couple separated in 2010.
The husband argued he should receive two-thirds of the Confluence shares on the basis he made a special contribution during the marriage, and the fact the shares will not be realised until some years after the end of the marriage. The wife, who worked as legal counsel for Confluence, contended they should divide the shares equally.
Delivering his judgment in Evans v Evans [2013] EWHC 506 (Fam), Mr Justice Moylan said: “I
regret to say that I also found the approach taken by both parties during the course of the hearing to be unhelpful.
“Points have been pursued in a confused and confusing manner. Each side seemed to be focused largely on forensic point scoring and both put forward offers that, in my view, paid little regard to the resources which are in fact currently available.”
Moylan J awarded 45% of the couple’s assets, £18m, to the wife and £22m to the husband.
He declined to make an order of costs, stating: “In my judgment, they are both to blame and there is no sufficient discriminating feature to justify one paying the other’s costs.”
