MJ v CB [2026] EWFC 205 (B)
[1]Preliminary points[2]This is a final financial remedies hearing. I heard from Ms Lieu on behalf of the applicant wife MJ, and Ms Brackley on behalf of the respondent husband CB.[3]I am grateful to counsel for their meticulous presentation today.[4]I do however have to make the following preliminary points in relation to the ES2.[5]The case was difficult to prepare because the husband and wife’s figures for investments as set out in the ES2 were completely different. The husband’s figure added up to £291,042 and the wife’s figure £405,285.[6]It only became apparent during evidence that this appeared to be because the husband’s figures were drawn from updated disclosure given on 24th June and the wife’s figures from slightly earlier disclosure given on 2nd June.[7]The ES2 also displayed an incorrect figure for CB’s liabilities at £76,756. This was primarily in relation to capital gains tax due following the sale of his business. He has however been making payments to defray that liability of circa £11,000 to date so that the liability is now reduced to some £65,756.[8]The husband favoured high risk investments predominantly cryptocurrency and those investments plummeted during the short space of time between the 2nd and 24th June.[9]The wife sought to raise conduct because of alleged losses since the Form E and was granted permission to file and serve a statement in relation to conduct, while the husband was granted permission to file a statement in reply.[10]The wife rightly abandoned her allegations of misconduct shortly before trial by which time additional needless costs had been incurred which the husband seeks to recover notwithstanding that all parties agree that this is a needs case.[11]Background[12]The husband is a software engineer aged 45 and the wife who is 44 worked for a national heritage organisation until she took voluntary redundancy in December 2025.[13]The husband sold his stake in a software company called C Ltd for £400,643.58 on 31st of August 2024.[14]Both parties are currently unemployed.[15]The parties commenced cohabitation in 2019. They married in 2022. They separated in 2024. This was a five-year relationship and a 20-month marriage.[16]The parties have two children. G aged seven and D aged five. The two children spend equal time with each parent.[17]The former matrimonial home is in the sole name of the wife although all parties accept that this is a shareable asset. There is equity of circa £75,000.[18]The wife remains in the former matrimonial home, and the husband rents a similar property for £1650 per calendar month.[19]CB has been paying spousal maintenance of £1300 per month to MJ for the past two years.[20]Chronology[21]2019 cohabitation commences.[22]2022 parties marry.[23]March 2022 MJ is placed on long-term sick leave because of locally advanced stage 3 anal carcinoma.[24]2024 parties separate.[25]Aug 2024 CB sells his share in his business C Ltd for £400,643.58.[26]Dec 2025 MJ accepts voluntary redundancy and receives a redundancy payment of £33,051.46 in April 2026 now defrayed by legal costs and living expenses.[27]June 2025 Form E’s are exchanged.[28]July 2025 first appointment.[29]March 2026 private FDR.[30]MJ’s evidence[31]MJ as the applicant wife was the first to give evidence. I found her to be a plausible and compelling witness. Certainly not somebody who could be described as workshy. She clearly relished her role with her former employer and was much valued by that organisation and her colleagues. The last thing she wanted was to be placed on long-term sick leave. Sadly, she was given no say in the matter.[32]CB[33]I equally found CB to be a plausible and compelling witness. He was somewhat softly spoken. He is a risk taker and chose to invest in highly volatile instruments such as cryptocurrency. Those investments have taken a significant downturn in the three weeks prior to trial hence the confusion in the ES2 figures touched upon earlier.[34]What are the main issues?[35]The main issues are the wife’s earning capacity given that she is in remission from cancer treatment and is currently unable to work. Unfortunately, there is a lack of cogent medical evidence regarding her ability and timescale to return to work.[36]How long will MJ need before she can return to work and achieve financial independence and how long will she need spousal maintenance for?[37]Can the court order Child maintenance payments given the shared care arrangement?[38]Both counsel agreed that the short answer is yes. I can do no better than repeat the authority for this set out in Ms Brackley’s skeleton:[39]The recent case of OS v DT, a judgment of HHJ Hess, determined that where care of the parties’ children is agreed to be shared, and thus there is no ‘parent with care’ or ‘qualifying child’ under the Child Support Act 1991 such that it would be determined a ‘special case’ as per Reg 50 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012. HHJ Hess confirmed that neither party need make an application to the CMS for a ‘nil’ assessment before applying to the court for an order for CPP’s in this scenario.[40]Should the court artificially increase child periodical payments and decrease spousal maintenance by the same amount to enhance the wife’s potential claim for universal credit given that she has less than the threshold of £16,000 in savings?[41]I indicated to the parties that I would be uncomfortable with this approach for public policy reasons. Instead, I prefer to focus simply on what the wife needs in terms of spousal and child payments together with duration. I leave it to Counsel to agree a split.[42]Application of the Law and the S.25 criteria.[43]Section 25 obliges me to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any children of the family.[44]I have regard to the following matters:-[45]The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage have.[46]The husband’s tax returns show that he was earning about £75,000 largely from dividend payments received prior to the sale of his business in August 2024. His current earnings are modest and he’s been living off his investments since that time.[47]He has been applying for jobs as a software engineer with a variety of companies and anticipates earnings of up to £65,000.[48]The wife has been unable to work since being signed off long-term sick in 2022. Her employers had an income protection policy with legal and general that continue to pay half her salary until she accepted voluntary redundancy when her income ceased.[49]As well as payments from the husband amounting to £15,600 per annum the wife receives state benefits of child benefit ESA and PIP amounting to a further £12,000 per annum although the ESA element would cease upon the wife securing employment.[50]She has no savings for household emergencies etc[51]Medical evidence of her capacity for work is inconclusive. I was taken to an occupational health report and to 2 GP letters both of which are non-committal in terms of the wife’s ability to return to work.[52]The wife’s own evidence was compelling. Fortunately, she has been cancer free for some 3 ½ years but continues to suffer side-effects from her treatment. She would like to return to oxygen treatment which ended in December due to lack of funds and she found the psychotherapy immensely beneficial.[53]She accepted under cross examination that her symptoms are improving although there is a risk she may have to undergo further surgery to repair the damage caused by radiotherapy.[54]In her statement she hoped she would be fit to work in about one year’s time on the assumption that her recovery will continue to progress.[55]She referred to a report from her treating oncologist and could not understand why this had not been included in the bundle. Nor it appears was permission sought or granted for reliable medical evidence from any of the key clinicians as to when MJ might be fit to return to work.[56]The evidence is not as thorough as it might have been on this key point.[57]However, MJ is far from workshy and doing the best I can I proceed on the basis that she will be fit to return to work in about a year’s time as she states in her statement. Albeit this may be part-time at first given her commitments to the children and their need to be collected from school and other needs.[58]Turning to CB, I was taken to a list of jobs he has applied for. The market is difficult at present, but I anticipate he will find gainful employment achieving of a salary of circa £65,000 given his specific skill set.[59]The needs of the parties are set out in their respective schedules. The wife’s needs are key in terms of how much she will need for spousal and child maintenance before transitioning to independence.[60]Refreshingly I do not find her schedule to have been exaggerated. She places them at £41,000 per annum. She was cross examined for alleged double counting in terms of visits to see her elderly father in France and holidays.[61]It was also suggested to her that oxygen treatment and psychotherapy may be discretionary items; however, I reject this assertion.[62]Nevertheless, some trimming from her needs schedule will need to be made given CB’s finances and in particular the requirement to continue to rent at least in the short term.[63]I have nothing useful to add in relation to the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the respective parties. Both intend to jointly raise the two young children under a shared care arrangement for the foreseeable future.[64]The parties had a reasonable standard of living before the breakdown of the marriage, but both parties are currently unemployed and sacrifices are unavoidable.[65]This was however a short marriage, but both parties accept the result is dictated by need.[66]The wife is in recovery from serious stage III cancer, and her treatment remains ongoing with the prognosis relatively uncertain but gradually improving.[67]The husband by contrast is in good health.[68]Both parties made equal contributions to the marriage both financially and in terms of raising the two children.[69]Conduct was raised by the wife’s but then rightly abandoned albeit shortly before trial.[70]I have nothing else to add on the section 25 factors.[71]The parties’ open offers[72]All parties agree that MJ should remain in the former matrimonial home primarily for the benefit of the children to avoid further disruption to their young lives.[73]CB offers a lump sum of £80,000 towards the mortgage where the payments are currently £949 per calendar month thus reducing MJ’s mortgage payments.[74]CB then offers global maintenance of £1350 per calendar month for one year reducing to £715 per calendar month for two years thereafter.[75]MJ seeks a lump sum of £128,000 and global maintenance of £2366 per calendar month for three years and £1697 per calendar month for the next three years.[76]Decision and analyses[77]Both parties accept that due to depletion of the assets by legal costs this is now a needs case.[78]Both parties have similar housing need in that both require a three-bedroom property.[79]Ideally both require a separate office in which to work from home but I have formed the view that the money is simply not there to facilitate this and the parties may have to work from their respective bedrooms.[80]MJ’s ability to work remains compromised by her rehabilitative treatment and ongoing symptoms and this will remain the case for the next year or so. She continues to feel exhausted.[81]Fortunately, CB is fit and healthy.[82]CB has the higher mortgage raising capacity although he will have to do show at least three months wage slips before he is able to apply for a mortgage and so he will have to remain in rented accommodation pending that time.[83]I find that his earning capacity is over double that of MJ’s and that these factors when taken together justify a departure from equality in favour of MJ.[84]CB needs £250,000 to rehouse in a similar property.[85]Money is tight on both sides because of the recent significant fall in the husband’s investments and the failed private FDR resulting in the matter proceeding to an expensive contested hearing.[86]Taking the ES2 figure of investments to the value of £291,042 and the amended liabilities figure of £65,756 this leaves a net figure of £225,286 for distribution ignoring for the time being the equity in the house.[87]Given the husband’s superior earning capacity and mortgage raising capacity I order the husband to pay £100,000 to the wife to enable her to reduce the mortgage to a manageable figure of £56,649.[88]Taking table 10 of At a Glance and utilising an interest rate of 5.5% this would reduce her monthly mortgage payments from £949 to approximately £350 per month.[89]This would result in the wife achieving net assets of £175,000 including the equity in the house and the husband £125,000. This is a discrepancy in equality of £50,000 in favour of the wife which is fair when one considers the husband superior earning and mortgage raising capacity notwithstanding this was a short marriage.[90]Notwithstanding skilled cross examination I have found the wife’s needs schedule to be realistic. I do also have to consider CB’s ability to pay and it is to be hoped that he will find lucrative work in the short term but in the meantime will have to continue to fund periodical payments from his savings.[91]The wife places her needs at about £41,000 per annum which equates to about £3400 per month.[92]Her offer of £2366 per month for three years is therefore not far off the mark and CB’s offer of £1350 per month for one year is too low.[93]I order global payments of £2300 per calendar month for one year after which I would hope that MJ is able to find part-time work. Things will still be tight given that the children will need to be picked up at school at 3 PM and given other childcare commitments which will have to tie in with any part-time work. Earnings will be modest and ongoing financial support necessary.[94]I do not therefore propose any significant reduction after one year, but those payments can be reduced to £1600 from year two for a further period of three years by which time I would hope that MJ can transition to financial independence without undue hardship depending on her recovery progress.[95]I invite both Counsel to agree how these payments are to be broken down between spousal and child payments.[96]I do not order any section 28 bar given that the young ages of the children and the uncertainty surrounding MJ’s ongoing recovery particularly where further surgery is due.[97]Pension share[98]I do not order any pension share nor is one sought.[99]Costs[100]The wife’s costs are more than £50,000 and the husband’s costs over double this amount because of the somewhat convoluted nature of his asset base in contrast to that of the wife[101]The wife raised conduct when it was wholly inappropriate so to do compelling the husband to generate further costs responding. No N60 has been filed but I reduce the lump sum due to the wife of £100,000 by £2000 towards the costs needlessly incurred by the husband in responding to allegations of misconduct.[102]END