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 The company’s turnover was said to have fallen by 38 per cent and its healthy profits had been replaced by substantial losses.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

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...