In one of the most scathing judgments I have been involved in, in recent years, Deputy District Judge Michael Horton KC laid bare the catastrophic impact of narcissistic and self-destructive behaviour in financial remedy proceedings.
The case of NR v SE, in which I represented the Applicant, was not simply a battle over money, but rather a forensic unpicking of how one party’s scorched-earth approach – driven by the individual’s ego – can derail not just litigation, but lives.
At the time of their separation, NR and SE had £80,000 in savings, a thriving business turning over more than £350,000 a year, and a standard of living that included designer clothes and international holidays.
Now, those savings are gone, the business is defunct and both parties are in debt
All of this, according to the judge, was not down to misfortune or poor financial planning.
Within the judgment, District Judge Horton KC stated: “How has this position come about? Well, the sad fact is it is not through bad luck or ill health or even poor judgment. It is, in my judgment, entirely down to the husband’s self-destructive behaviour.”
The husband’s intentions were not subtle. In messages sent to his wife – our client – shortly after their separation, he promised: “You will get f*** all,” and “I’m going to f***the whole company up.” He, unfortunately, delivered on both promises in the preceding months.
Rather than work towards a fair financial settlement, the husband undermined the process at every turn.
He refused to engage with disclosure obligations, missed court deadlines, ignored orders and when finally ordered to attend court under threat of imprisonment, attempted to adjourn the trial at the last minute based on dubious health claims and conflicting excuses about his whereabouts.
Despite claiming to be destitute, he took holidays to the Maldives and Jamaica, spent thousands on designer clothing and made suspiciously large payments to his new partner.
Meanwhile, he received universal credit and claimed his legal fees, totalling more than £24,000, had been paid by a generous friend. The judge found all this implausible.
What made this case especially disturbing was the pattern of narcissistic behaviour, which included a blatant disregard for the truth, manipulation of the legal process and the weaponisation of litigation to control and punish his wife, according to the judgment.
There were also repeated efforts to mislead the court through his solicitors. At one point, his legal team relayed that he had missed a child arrangements hearing due to a mental health crisis, only for him to later claim he had been at the hospital with his new partner for the birth of their child.
The judge was clear. This was a man who used professionals to mislead the court without hesitation.
In contrast, the wife was calm, consistent and credible. Her evidence was backed by well-prepared documents and she engaged fully with the process despite the emotional toll it had taken on her.
The financial settlement reflected this stark imbalance. The court transferred the remaining significant asset, a piece of land purchased during the marriage, to the wife.
It imposed a £1,500 per month maintenance order on the husband and made a full pension sharing order in her favour.
A contingent lump sum was also ordered to indemnify her against potential liabilities tied to the mismanaged business and misuse of the land.
The court’s findings on non-disclosure were particularly damning. The husband’s refusal to provide full and frank financial information led the court to draw adverse inferences, namely, that he had hidden assets and income.
He had access to commercial vehicles, cash payments disguised as loans, and shell businesses, all of which he either failed to disclose or deliberately misrepresented. As the judge noted, the husband was not impoverished. He was playing a game.
Subsequent to the judgment, the husband failed to comply with the Court’s Orders and was ultimately given a custodial sentence for breaching the same, and was ordered to pay towards the wife’s legal costs.
Lessons from this narcissistic divorce
Cases like NR v SE are extreme but not uncommon. In family law, we occasionally encounter individuals so bent on winning or, more accurately, making the other party lose, that they will destroy their financial health in the process.
This case is a textbook example of narcissism driving litigation. It reminds us that:
- Litigation can be weaponised: Narcissistic individuals often use delay, denial and drama as tools of control. Courts must be willing to act decisively to prevent ongoing abuse via the courtroom.
- Non-disclosure must carry consequences: The ability to draw adverse inferences is critical. It enabled the judge to rebalance the outcome in the face of dishonesty.
- Needs above misconduct, but conduct matters: While family law rarely penalises bad behaviour outright, where resources are limited and one party’s conduct has caused the financial depletion, the court can deprioritise their claims.
- Support for vulnerable parties is vital: The wife in this case demonstrated extraordinary resilience, but not every litigant is equipped to withstand this level of psychological pressure. Practitioners must be alert to signs of coercive control and act to protect their clients.
- The Courts can help you: Court Orders have teeth. Breaching a Court Order can result in costs sanctions against the defaulting party and, as in this case, imprisonment can follow.
NR v SE is a reminder of why it matters. Financial remedy law is not just about dividing assets, it’s about restoring fairness, dignity and independence after the breakdown of a relationship.
Stuart Daniel is Director and Head of the Family Department at Mander Hadley
