The courts are entitled to draw reasonable adverse inferences against a party who fails to engage in divorce proceedings. How this is approached in practice was illustrated by a recent Family Court ruling on a financial remedies application in which the husband failed to play any part in the proceedings or make any financial disclosure.
The couple had married in London in 2003 and subsequently lived in Indonesia. The wife and the couple’s two sons had returned to England in 2016 and had lived here ever since. They lived in a two-bedroom flat and the wife was in receipt of benefits. She gave evidence that the husband continued to maintain the high standard of living in Indonesia that the family had enjoyed until 2016.
The husband had failed to attend previous proceedings in relation to the couple’s divorce, and had not provided any evidence or disclosed his assets. The wife had obtained a worldwide freezing order against him.
The wife gave evidence relating to a number of assets which she asked the Court to infer were owned by the husband, including four valuable properties, $20 million in bank accounts and a similar amount in cryptocurrency, and shares in several companies. She submitted that it would be reasonable to infer that the husband’s assets totalled £101 million, net of the costs of realisation.
The Court noted that, in drawing any adverse inferences about non-disclosed accounts, it was permitted to rely upon judicial experience of what was likely to be being concealed. The wife was seeking an award of £13.9 million, based on 50 per cent of the value of the four properties. She was not seeking a share of the husband’s business assets, and the Court observed that his non-engagement and non-disclosure had impeded her ability to present a more detailed case. As her claim was based on the value of the properties, the Court did not need to take the risk of drawing any unnecessarily specific adverse inferences in relation to his other assets.
Awarding the wife the £13.9 million she sought, the Court did not consider this unfair to the husband in view of the adverse inferences it had drawn against him. However, it remained concerned that it might be unfair to the wife, who had been unable to make a claim to a marital element of the husband’s other assets due to his obstructive non-engagement.
The Court also ruled that the worldwide freezing order against the husband should remain in force until the award was paid in full, and that he should pay the wife’s costs on the indemnity basis.