The High Court has rejected a husband’s claim that his interests in family trusts worth billions of pounds shouldn’t be treated as matrimonial assets.
In a divorce case TP v TF [2026] EWFC 210, which considered matrimonialisation, family trusts and fair division, the Honourable Mr Justice Garrido’s ruling in the family division of the Royal Courts of Justice “addressed unprecedented questions about the treatment of longstanding trusts in divorce”.
Justice Garrido found for the wife in the proceedings, ordering her former husband to pay her £120.4m, reflective of a share of his £378m of trust assets, with deductions.
The judgment was the conclusion of the final hearing of the wife’s application for a financial order issued on 8th July 2024.
The couple are both 63-years-old, were married in 2001 and have two adult children.
An earlier private financial remedies hearing was unsuccessful and the parties spent a combined total of £6.5m in legal fees.
Mr Justice Garrido considered almost 5,000 pages of documentary evidence, as well as “uncommonly extensive written and oral submissions”.
Judge Garrido remarked that the husband instructed counsel “to take every conceivable point in his attempt to protect his wealth” beyond his assessment of his wife’s needs.
The central issue in dispute was over the husband’s income from multiple family trusts, some of which related to his career in a family business.
The husband’s legal team argued the general culture of trusts over time is to distribute income but preserve the capital for future generations. The wife’s case argued that the distinction between “income” and “capital” is meaningless in the case of those trusts that hold the underlying capital value through offshore holding companies for tax reasons.
Justice Garrido considered whether the husband could access the whole or a large part of his interest in the trusts, were the trustees to agree – and found that it was feasible.
He writes: “This issue of whether trust interests are [the husband’s] resources only reared its head before me in November 2025 after the FDR. His Form E presentation clearly indicates that the trusts are his resources and he did not say otherwise, despite the requirements of para 2.14. His explanation in his oral evidence that ‘the question of resources had not been addressed at that time’ is deeply unattractive given his representation by specialist solicitors and counsel. The ES2 provided to me at the first appointment in May 2025 when [the husband] was already represented by Mr Horton KC and Mr Laing of counsel includes £378m of trust assets as [the husband’s resources.”
The judge remarked that he “generally preferred [the wife’s] evidence to that of [the husband’s” as she was “entirely straightforward, giving direct, patient and consistent answers to the most testing of questions.” By contrast, the husband “seemingly regarded giving evidence as an opportunity to argue his case rather than answer questions”.
In assessing the case, Justice Garrido remarked that the question for the court was: “If [the husband] were to request it, would the trustees be likely to advance the whole or part of the assets of the trust to him now or in the foreseeable future?”
He came to the conclusion that, if requested, the trustees would make the entire value of [his interest in the trust] available to [the husband].
Justice Garrido said: “It is clear that [the trusts’s] purpose is and always has been to reward [the husband] for his endeavours on behalf of the family within the business, thereby enabling him to build up capital in excess of that which was otherwise notionally allocated to him solely by virtue of being the issue of his parents.”
“During the course of the marriage, he was supported in those endeavours and enabled to perform that function (for which [trust] was his reward) by his wife. By now, it should be uncontroversial that during the course of the marital partnership, there is no room for discrimination between husband and wife as to the different but complimentary roles that each perform, thereby equally contributing to the notional allocation of [his] shares to [trust].”
The judgment referred to a complex discussion over tax liabilities on the trust assets and debts to HMRC held by the husband; both of which are reflected in the sum ordered for payment.
The husband’s counsel argued that only £893,000 out of his total cash equivalent pension of £2,939,872 should be regarded as matrimonial, which the judge agreed to.
The judge repeated prior agreements that the husband shall receive the London home, subject to mortgage, and the wife shall receive the country home, free of a mortgage. In addition, the husband gets two London flats, and a 25% interest in the Pre-Alps home, and Alpine chalet. Both parties retain their own accounts, investments and liabilities.
The judge ordered the husband to pay the wife £5m within 14 days of his order and a further £12m within 90 days.
The balance to be paid “will be dependent on a further distribution from the trustees”.
In closing, it was submitted on behalf of the wife that: “[She] is concerned that an award based on the sharing principle at a level which is unpalatable to [the husband] will result in non-compliance…. In the circumstances, we submit that security is justified. We seek no more than a general indication from the court at this point.”
Justice Garrido concluded: “I am not willing to give a general indication at this stage. If there are specific proposals on either side in the light of my judgment, I will of course consider them when they are choate.”
Tim Bishop KC, Emma Chamberlain OBE, Kyra Cornwall and Emma Hargreaves acted as counsel for the wife.
Michael Horton KC, Dakis Hagen KC, David Ewart KC, Alex Laing and Stephanie Thompson, acted for the husband.
This judgment was delivered in private and handed down remotely on 29 July 2026, and only recently published to the National Archives.
Jessica Reid, Partner at Dawson Cornwell, said: “This case addressed unprecedented questions about the treatment of longstanding trusts on divorce. Accountants, trust specialists and wealth planners alike should pay close attention to this judgment and what it means for offshore trusts, even those established years before a marriage.
“Perhaps most importantly, this is a powerful reminder of the importance of having robust pre- and post-nups in place, particularly for families with substantial wealth held in trust. While I always explore and encourage the possibility of mediation, not every case can be resolved outside court.
“Another crucial consideration this case highlights is the importance of choosing the right trustees. Never has there been a more significant case in English family law on this point.
“Cases like this also make me wonder whether the future of private wealth law lies in the emergence of ‘super-lawyers’, who understand family, trust and tax law. In my opinion, being able to navigate all three will only become more important.”
