We regularly use the term “high-net-worth” when describing financial remedy cases, but what does it actually mean? Is it simply about a few extra zeros on our new ES2, or is it really about the complexities these cases attract?
For me, it’s often the latter. A case can be high-value but straightforward if both parties accept the figures and there’s little scope for argument. They might each walk away with a flat in Mayfair and a holiday home in the South of France — simple enough.
Not so simple when we start looking beneath the surface. For example, how was the wealth generated? What is the source of funds? Are assets realisable? Are the assets in this jurisdiction or overseas? Crucially, does everyone even agree on the grand total, or is there non-disclosure at play?
Where there’s non-disclosure, disclosure orders may be sought. If there’s suspicion of assets being diverted to frustrate a spouse’s claim, freezing orders are on the table. The family court’s powers should not be underestimated.
When first instructed in a high-net-worth case, family lawyers often consider whether their client is engaging in divorce forum shopping — choosing the jurisdiction most favourable to their case. The recent Court of Appeal’s judgment in Potanina v Potanin reinforced England’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world and so we may be busier than ever. Can our Courts cope though – that’s another question for another day!
As we all know, the family courts apply the overarching principle of fairness, encompassing needs, compensation, and sharing. Assets acquired during the marriage fall under the sharing principle, which assumes greater weight in high-value cases. The argument at play is often whether an asset is matrimonial (to be shared) or non-matrimonial (excluded unless needed to meet one party’s needs).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 provided clarity on this. Matrimonial assets are generally subject to equal division, while non-matrimonial assets are not, but they may be redistributed to meet needs. The Court emphasised that the source of an asset is critical, not whose name it is in.
That said, grey areas remain. Assets can become matrimonialised (our new favourite word!). A husband’s pre-marriage business may be “non-matrimonial” by source, but what if the wife’s efforts throughout the marriage significantly contributed to its growth and the benefits reaped by both? Is there matrimonialisation of the asset? How should the wife’s efforts be quantified?
High-net-worth cases inevitably invite greater scrutiny, not only because of the sums at stake, but because the parties often have the resources to litigate every angle. Such issues are often contributions, inherited and gifted wealth, business assets, assets held in trusts, offshore holdings and non-disclosure and third-party interests.
When family businesses are involved, experts are appointed to carefully examine the financial accounts of the business and will report on the value and in particular, a parties’ interest in it. They will identify any ‘hidden benefits’ or disproportionate debts that may affect the valuation.
The courts may adopt what we know as a “Wells sharing” approach. This method involves sharing the assets and liabilities of a business equally while ensuring that the division does not disrupt the business’s operations.
Settlements involving trusts or offshore structures may require creative solutions, such as restructuring or extracting funds to ensure fairness. If a trust has been set up to conceal or dissipate assets, rest assured that a diligent family lawyer will press until every stone has been turned.
Finally, one of the emotive Section 25 factors in high net worth cases is often the standard of living enjoyed throughout the marriage. In high-net-worth cases, this often leads to a more generous interpretation of “needs,” particularly where resources are plentiful. The goal is to maintain, as far as possible, the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
So, will the champagne lifestyle continue — or is it crémant from now on?
Lisa Payne is an Associate in the family team at Wilsons Solicitors
One Response
“In my experience managing high-value estates, legal strategy often hits a wall when there is an unaccounted-for spiritual interference. We recently handled a case where a $50M family legacy was being drained due to a third-party shadow influence that traditional advisors couldn’t see.
We brought in Mystic Kakaa for a discrete ‘Structural Clearance.’ His work was surgical, silent, and restored the principal’s focus in less than 5 days. For those overseeing high-stakes affairs where privacy is non-negotiable, his intervention is the only one I authorize. Office contact: spiritualkakaa {at} gmail (dot) com.”