Philip Perrins, instructed by Stowe Family Law, acted for the applicant wife in an archetypical ‘needs case’ that involved numerous factual issues, including: whether monies were owing to the husband’s mother, who was initially joined as a party, but became merely a witness in the proceedings; the significance of historic transfers between the parties’ parents; the status of loans to and from companies in which the parties held shares; and the net value of the shares in those companies. In relation to the latter, the underlying valuation of a property held by one company became an issue at trial and notwithstanding that the parties had agreed the valuation at the PTR. 

The judge held them to the agreed valuation and dismissed the husband’s extremely late Daniels v Walker type of application.  The factual issues turned largely on the credibility of the parties and their witnesses. The judge ultimately preferred the evidence of the wife and in an assessment of her needs ordered her to receive over 75% of the disclosed resources, albeit on a clean break basis.  In addition, the husband was ordered to contribute towards the wife’s costs considering his litigation misconduct.