JMW’s family law team acted for a wife in financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a long marriage. We helped her retain the former family home after her husband sought a further share of the matrimonial assets, despite an informal agreement that he would bear the risk of his post-separation business investment.

The Case

Our client was the wife in financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a long marriage. The husband had been a successful restaurateur for many years, while our client had run a textile and design business and had also cared for the children. Both parties had made an equal contribution to married life.

The central issue was an informal agreement the parties had reached and then acted upon. Our client’s case was that the husband’s investment in a new business would come out of his side of any financial settlement. The agreement meant that the husband had effectively received his share of the financial settlement, which he then lost in a failed business venture.

The husband later sought a further share of the matrimonial pot to meet his needs. His case was that the former family home should be sold and the net sale proceeds divided equally between the parties.

Our client needed a team that could present the informal agreement clearly, protect her housing position and ensure that the husband’s post-separation commercial risk did not undermine her long-term security.

How Did JMW Help?

JMW presented a clear and commercially realistic case to the court. We argued that, although the agreement between the parties had not been formally perfected, it remained important because both parties had acted on the basis that the husband’s business investment would be treated as his share.

We showed that the husband’s losses in the new business venture had, in substance, ceased to be matrimonial in nature. They flowed from his own post-separation choices and commercial risk-taking, rather than from decisions made jointly during the marriage.

JMW focused the court on fairness, our client’s housing needs and the practical reality of the husband’s position. We argued that any further award to the husband was likely to be lost to creditors, rather than used to meet a genuine housing need.

Our approach combined detailed financial remedies expertise with a strong focus on the real-world consequences of the order being sought. This allowed us to protect our client’s position and ensure that the court understood why the former family home should not be sold to meet the husband’s claim.

The Outcome

The court accepted our client’s case and made the order she sought. Our client was able to retain the former matrimonial home, and the husband’s claim for 50% of the net sale proceeds from the sale of the family home was rejected.

This was an excellent outcome for our client. It protected her long-term security, allowed her to move forward with her life and ensured that the husband was held to the informal agreement the parties had reached.

The case demonstrates JMW’s ability to identify the key fairness issues in complex financial remedy proceedings and present them with clarity. By keeping our client’s housing needs at the forefront, we persuaded the court that the husband should bear the consequences of the commercial risk he had chosen to take.