header-logo header-logo

19 September 2025 / Emma Brunning , Dharshica Thanarajasingham
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Features , Family , Disclosure , Divorce , Costs
printer mail-detail

Marital assets: Stormy waters?

230027
A port, a masterclass in gaslighting, & identifying assets acquired post-separation: Emma Brunning & Dharshica Thanarajasingham present TF v SF
  • In TF v SF, the husband’s dishonesty, including hiding £9.5m arising from a port deal. His evidence in court was called out as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’.
  • Despite being acquired post-separation, the port’s value was deemed rooted in marital assets and efforts, leading to the wife receiving 43% of total assets.
  • The court penalised the husband’s obstructive behaviour with cost orders and asset valuation adjustments, while embracing tech-savvy trial management to streamline proceedings.

The long-running case of TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam) (in which the wife was represented by Birketts, instructing Alexander Thorpe KC and Saima Younis of QEB) centred around identifying and quantifying the parties’ assets and deciding when the value of a company owning a port was acquired and whether it is matrimonial. The matter was made more complicated by the husband’s actions and his behaviour as demonstrated at the five-day

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll