fbpx

COVID-19 – Do Diving Asset Values Justify Unwinding Divorce Settlements?

20th July 2021 By

The value of many assets has been devastated by COVID-19 – but is that a good enough reason for setting aside divorce settlements agreed before the pandemic struck? A family judge considered that issue in a guideline case.

The case concerned a middle-aged couple whose 24-year marriage yielded three children before it ended in divorce. By far their biggest asset was a family business which, prior to the onset of the pandemic, was valued at about £3.5 million gross. The husband owned 51 per cent of the shares in the company with the remainder being held by the wife, who had never played an active part in the business.

Nine days prior to the imposition of the first lockdown, a consent order was signed whereby the wife was to receive 39.8 per cent of the marriage’s capital assets and 32.8 per cent of their pension funds. The quid pro quo for that uneven distribution was that, whilst the wife’s assets were copper-bottomed, the husband’s were entirely illiquid and subject to greater risk.

As part of the deal, the husband agreed to pay the wife a £1 million lump sum by instalments over a two-year period. The plan was that the company would buy back the wife’s shares and that the money required to do so would be raised by way of loans and by delving into the business’s cash reserves.

The husband subsequently applied to set the consent order aside on the basis that the business, which sourced many of its supplies from China, had been decimated by the pandemic. The company’s turnover was said to have fallen by 38 per cent and its healthy profits had been replaced by substantial losses. The husband asserted that the lump sum was no longer affordable on the basis that the company’s value had more than halved, that it was suffering severe liquidity difficulties and that its long-term future was bleak.

Ruling on the matter, the judge found that the pandemic was an extraordinary event that potentially opened the door to the husband’s application. By the date on which the consent order was signed, however, the government had issued a number of public warnings that COVID-19 posed a serious and imminent threat to public health and was likely to cause severe disruption for many months.

The husband could not have been expected to foresee the full consequences of the pandemic. He was, however, an experienced and successful businessman who should reasonably have foreseen the risk that the virus would have a significant impact on the company’s trading position.

Dismissing his application, the judge noted that neither husband nor wife were forced to sign the consent order, the terms of which they viewed at the time as sensible and fair. By agreeing to those terms, the husband chose to take the risk of divesting himself of liquid assets in order to retain control of the business. It had to be assumed that he was aware of that risk and knew what he was doing.

The company was trading through very difficult times but the husband had not given up on it and viewed it as remaining viable, albeit on a smaller scale than he had hoped for. Although he would have to bear the pain of complying with the consent order, the judge expressed the hope that a pragmatic and consensual way forward might be found that would ensure the survival of the business.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...