The High Court has granted a divorce and ordered the husband to pay his wife half the value of the family assets, subject to specified caveats, after a marriage of more than three decades.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the couple’s marriage had involved equal contributions in different roles: the husband built businesses and managed investments, while the wife was principally responsible for the home and children and helped establish a family business. The couple’s children are now young adults; two had been dependent when the proceedings began.
The judge directed that the family business remain outside the calculation of the payment, with both parties’ existing involvement and income from it continuing unless either chooses to change that arrangement. Where the husband owns property jointly with a third party, the wife is to receive half of his interest, and the value transferred to her is to reduce the assets counted in calculating the payment.
The family home is to be transferred to the wife. Its value is also to be accounted for in calculating the payment: the assets counted are to be reduced by half the value assigned to the home. The judge ordered the husband to leave immediately, before the transfer is completed. He said he could not determine whether allegations of violence and intimidation were true on the evidence, but was concerned they had been made and about the possibility of further harm.
The judge described the intended orders as a clean break and said he would make no maintenance order. He said a lump-sum payment would provide financial independence while avoiding a forced sale of farming and business assets. The final timing and method of payment were not set in the judgment. Counsel were asked to make submissions within four weeks on whether it should be paid at once or in stages, allowing time to raise funds or sell assets without a “fire sale”. The judge also said he would hear the parties on costs.
The judgment records that the court relied substantially on asset evidence from the husband’s financial adviser. It also notes uncertainty in the evidence about ownership of the family home and farm, but says that point did not alter the approach taken. The court did not make an order for any dependent family member.