An ex-wife has been ordered to pay half of the cost of her ex-husband’s gender reassignment surgery after a judge found there was a “genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need” for the ex-husband to transition.
Brighton Family Court heard how the former spouses, who cannot be named for legal reasons, both worked in financial services, married in 2002 and went on to enjoy what was described as an ‘international lifestyle’, with assets around £3m and property abroad and two children by the time the marriage broke down 20 years later.
In 2022 the then husband announced he wished to transition, resulting in the breakdown of the marriage. His then-wife said she was “deeply shocked” by her partner’s announcement “and filed for divorce two months later, claiming she had no idea of her spouse’s desire to transition. In the same year the husband began hormone therapy before gender reassignment surgery took place in 2024 at a cost of £160,000, paid for from a joint bank account.
The operation became one of the most contentious issues in the proceedings with the ex-wife saying the operation should have been paid for from his personal assets, given that his decision to transition had ’caused the end of the marriage.’ The ex-husband claimed he was unable to afford court-ordered maintenance payments to his former wife and their children despite spending £14,000 clothing, nails, jewellery, and dining out in one month, and £13,000 on tattoos over a six-month period.
Despite the ex-wife describing the breakdown of the marriage as ‘devastating and a big surprise’ Judge Stuart Farquhar sitting at Brighton Family Court ruled in favour of the ex-husband, saying it was ‘reasonable’ for the couple to split the cost of the surgery ‘out of joint resources,’ ordering the wife to contribute £80,0000.
Arguing the surgery should be ‘treated in the way of any other medical costs’ the ex-husband compared the situation to ‘like saying (to) someone who had cancer (they) should not have the surgery…’. The hearing revealed he had suffered from gender dysphoria and experienced ‘significant anxiety, depression and distress.’
While Judge Farquhar acknowledged the ex-husband had ‘shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly’ his former wife, the ruling reflected his view the surgery was not carried out “as a whim” and that it was “reasonable” for the costs to be covered using joint funds.
