Can the COVID-19 Crisis Justify Reopening Financial Orders in Divorce?

13th January 2022 By

Can the economic havoc wreaked by the COVID-19 pandemic justify the re-drawing of final financial orders made following a divorce? The High Court has ruled in a guideline case that the answer to that question is ‘probably not’.

The case concerned a couple whose principal asset was a business in the education sector. A judge ruled on the financial aspects of their divorce in October 2019, a few months prior to the onset of the pandemic. She ordered that, of total assets worth £4.75 million, the husband should receive 58 per cent and the wife 42 per cent.

The wife agreed that the husband should keep the business, an asset that pre-dated the marriage and which thus had, to some extent, a non-matrimonial element. The unequal division of assets was also justified by the fact that the husband’s shares in the business carried an element of risk and were not comparable to cash in the bank.

The business was hit hard after COVID-19 reached these shores and schools were closed as part of the lockdown. The husband applied to set aside parts of the order on the basis that the pandemic was an unforeseen and unforeseeable event that resulted in devastating financial consequences, which invalidated the fundamental assumptions on which the order was based.

Dismissing his application, however, the Court focused on the economic impact of the intervening event, rather than its cause or nature. The damage caused to the business by the pandemic was, in the end, no different from that which might have arisen from the 2008 global financial crisis. Although each case had to be decided on its own specific facts, the pandemic was probably not an event that could justify reopening a final judicial order.

The Court acknowledged the impact of the pandemic on the business’s turnover and profitability. The initial blow had, however, been softened by its receipt of £3.1 million from the government’s furlough scheme. It had also taken a low-interest £460,000 coronavirus business interruption loan and had good prospects of bouncing back from the crisis.

A reasonable person would have said in October 2019 that there was certainly a chance, which could not sensibly be ignored, that there would be an economic downturn in the next year. It was absolutely clear that the basis of the judge’s order was that the husband would be retaining assets which were risky and, for that reason, would be granted a greater than equal share of the assets.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Litigation – You Need a Lawyer to Navigate the Procedural Minefield

27th January, 2022 By

The litigation process can, to a non-lawyer, appear to be a maze of procedural rules replete with traps for the unwary. In one case, a woman's claim against a builder went wrong almost from the start when she failed to pay a court fee on time. Following a trial, the builder, who had worked on her property, was ordered to pay the woman £10,920 in damages. His appeal against that decision was, however, subsequently upheld by a judge on the basis that the woman's delay in paying a £545 trial...

Late Payment of Tax – There Is Such a Thing as a Reasonable Excuse

24th January, 2022 By

Those who pay their taxes late can expect punishment – but there is such a thing as a reasonable excuse. In one case, a man who failed to notify the tax authorities of his obligation to pay the High Income Child Benefit Charge was relieved of financial penalties by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). Over a period of about five years, during which his annual earnings were in excess of £50,000, the man should have paid the charge. He failed to notify HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) of his liability. He...

Facing a Bank's Formal Demand for Payment? You Are Not Powerless

21st January, 2022 By

When faced with a bank's formal demand for payment, individual debtors can feel that there is little they can do but comply. However, as a High Court ruling showed, with the right legal advice they are very far from powerless. A bank served a man with a statutory demand requiring payment of £236,538. Such demands are frequently a precursor to bankruptcy proceedings. The man was said to owe the sum under loan facilities that had been entered into more than eight years previously. The demand was, however, set aside by...

Ambiguous Wills – Court of Appeal Gives Effect to Deceased's Intentions

18th January, 2022 By

Where words used in a will are ambiguous, judges will strive to interpret them in a way that gives effect to the deceased's intentions. An instructive Court of Appeal decision on point hinged on the little-known fact that the Channel Islands are not formally part of the United Kingdom. The case concerned a man who, at the date of his death, owned assets in Russia, England and Jersey. By his will, he left all his 'UK assets' to his children. After his death, an issue arose between the children and...