A recent case which demonstrates why it makes sense to consider settling in mediation

The cost in this recent case exceeds £200,000, and could have settled in mediation  with a similar outcome.

It concerned financial remedies following the parents’ decision to divorce. There

are two children of the marriage, aged 11 and 9. The children live with their mother and

spend time with their father, who lives a little way away, on weekends and in school

holidays. The parents met in 2011 and married in 2012. The relationship started to break

down during the Covid pandemic and the relationship formally ended in 2022. Both

parents are aged 50 and both have managerial jobs with good incomes.

The assets totalled approximately £2.3 million, sufficient to enable both to meet their

housing and income needs. They had incurred significant legal costs – exceeding

£200,000 – and remained in dispute over asset values, liabilities, pensions, alleged

dissipation of assets, and the appropriate distribution of the matrimonial property.

Both parties sought a fair division of the matrimonial assets but proposed significantly

different outcomes. The husband sought an equal division of the capital assets, transfer

of the holiday home to him, equal sharing of all pension assets, and sale of the former

matrimonial home. W sought to retain the former matrimonial home, argued that H should

make additional payments for alleged dissipation of assets and children’s expenses,

sought return of jewellery and other financial adjustments, and proposed that her (initially

undisclosed) pre-marital pensions should largely be excluded from sharing.

The court applied the established section 25 principles, focusing mainly on the parents

and children’s needs. The judge considered:

 the valuation of the properties (FMH, various rentals and a holiday home),

 the classification of liabilities including family loans,

 the treatment of pre-marital assets and pensions,

 the parents’ housing needs,

 their earning capacities, and

 the children’s welfare.

The judge ordered that:

 the former matrimonial home be transferred to the wife subject to her releasing H

from the mortgage within six months, failing which it would be sold

 the jointly owned rental property was to be sold with the proceeds paid to the

husband

 the husband was given the first option to purchase the wife’s share of the holiday

property, failing which the wife could do so, otherwise it would be sold and the

proceeds divided equally

 a pension sharing order awarding the husband 26.37% of the wife’s current

employment pension while excluding her wholly pre-marital pensions.

Otherwise, assets and liabilities to remain with their named holder.

The judge found that this outcome – resulting in the husband receiving 50.8% of the

realisable assets and the wife 49.2% – met both parties housing and financial needs,

gave first consideration to the welfare of the children, and achieved an overall fair

division. The overall pension split of 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband, was

justified on the basis that both had time to build further provision and the husband was in

a position to retain his rental properties for his retirement as planned.

The judge considered and rejected the wife’s claims, finding no basis for

treating the husband as having dissipated matrimonial assets, declined to make

additional child maintenance orders beyond the CMS scheme, and made no order for

costs.

Case: JK v LM [2026] EWFC 32 (B)

The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/32

The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/32