Judith approached us as her and her husband, Henry, had decided that the time to separate had unfortunately arrived. They had been married for around 12 years.
Judith and Henry married in North Shields though held much of their property overseas. As the parties married in England and Wales, the fact they held much of their property abroad did not mean that they were unable to divorce and deal with their matrimonial finances in England and Wales. The parties had started living in separate properties, with Judith remaining in the family home along with their 16 year old daughter and Henry had decided to reside temporarily in one of his properties in Singapore.
During the marriage, the parties had lived together in North Shields for the majority of the time they were married with Judith working as a GP and Henry having his own accountancy practice. Both parties were of similar ages and in good health. The family home in North Shields was legally owned jointly by the parties though the property overseas was held largely by Henry, with Henry owning three properties in Singapore and Judith owning one property in the US.
Judith decided to make an application for divorce. The family finances are dealt with separately to the divorce process and so, in order to ascertain what a financial settlement should look like, the parties agreed to undertake full financial disclosure. In this case, Judith decided to make a court application to assist with a timetable and ensure that a resolution was found as soon as possible, in part because Henry was hesitant to engage in the disclosure exercise.
When court proceedings are issued to decide what should happen with the family finances, the court set a date for a first hearing, which is a procedural hearing and is used to decide what extra evidence is needed to assist both the parties and the court with resolving the issue of how the family finances should be divided. The second hearing, known as a Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (FDR), is a without prejudice negotiation hearing and is used to attempt to settle the case once it has been ascertained what assets are available for division.
Prior to the FDR hearing, both Henry and Judith had to put forward their proposals. Henry’s position was that each party should keep the assets they held in their sole name save for the family home, which should be sold and the net sale proceeds be split equally. This would have left Judith with less assets overall than Henry.
Judith’s proposal, under our advice, was that she should be awarded a greater share of the net sale proceeds of the family home whilst Henry retained his properties in Singapore, so that she was effectively compensated for the disparity in Henry’s three foreign properties to her one. It was more desirable for Judith to receive more of the UK assets as it is much easier to enforce a financial settlement over UK assets than foreign assets so it would provide her with more security.
The indication given by the FDR judge (a non-binding opinion as to what the judge thinks a court would order at Final Hearing if the parties could not reach a settlement), was that Judith’s proposal was a fairer outcome which met the parties needs. After the indication, the parties agreed to follow the terms of Judith’s proposal and an order was drafted and approved at the hearing, bringing the proceedings to a close.
Divorce involving assets overseas can be complex and advice should be sought at the earliest opportunity. At Brown Holliday & Clements we can provide expert advice as to how the courts treat foreign assets and provide guidance as to how best to achieve settlement and/or navigate the often-complicated court process.
Please contact our offices on 0207 4318889 to book an appointment with one of our specialist family team.
