The High Court has declined to reopen previously decided issues in a divorce case, while setting out steps to be completed before final orders are made.
Mr Justice Max Barrett’s supplementary judgment, delivered on 25 January 2023, followed a hearing on further matters raised after his June 2022 judgment. The earlier judgment had left open whether exceptional market changes linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might justify revisiting share and pension values.
Ms A raised three principal concerns: the tax rate applied to Mr A’s stock options, a pension valuation that had not been provided after the earlier judgment, and whether Mr A had accurately described his employment. The judge said the tax treatment, including an effective rate of 50.4 per cent for Mr A, had largely been agreed by the parties’ forensic accountants at trial, and any dispute had been decided. He said this did not provide a basis to reopen the issue.
The pension value was handed to the court at the recent hearing. The judge directed that a supplementary affidavit exhibit the valuation’s details and said the order would reflect the figure exhibited. He said he was confident the figure would prove correct, based on what he had been told at the hearing.
On employment, Ms A relied on Mr A selecting “Deputy CEO/MD” on an online form for reporting dealings in his employer’s shares. Mr A’s counsel submitted that his job status had not changed and that there had been no promotion or salary increase since the original hearing. The judge said he would proceed on that basis if Mr A confirmed it in an affidavit, along with an explanation for using the title.
The judge noted that pension value had increased through contributions and growth, while share values had fallen by about six per cent. Mr A was willing to proceed using the increased pension value and to abide by the court’s decision on the share fall. The judge said the exceptional circumstances that had prompted him to consider revisiting values no longer applied. He would use the increased pension value in calculating the balancing payment and would not separately allow for the share-price depreciation.
The judge said the complaints did not establish a basis to revisit the judgment under the legal principles considered. He noted that no final order had yet been made and that a party dissatisfied with the judgment or order could appeal.
The court still had to hear submissions on costs and any final comments about the draft order’s detail. The judge said this hearing was not an opportunity to revisit matters already decided. The supplementary judgment did not itself make the final orders; those remained to be settled after the affidavit and further hearing.