Court judgements reinforce the importance of financial disclosure on divorce

Following two recently published cases, a family law specialist has highlighted the implications for those going through divorce proceedings. Rayma Collins, Head of Family at law firm Furley Page, said: “These two recent High Court cases are significant as they reiterate the importance of full disclosure within matrimonial financial proceedings, and the court’s approach to fairness of one-party funding the legal costs of the other when there is a substantial difference in wealth.”

The first case (MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28) relates to an allegation of non-disclosure of assets by a husband within divorce proceedings. The husband’s presentation was that his assets were ‘almost nil’. The wife sought a finding that the husband, a former CEO of an international technology company, had concealed considerable resources through offshore and trust structures.

The judge conducted an assessment, looking at the facts, and found that the husband had not been fully truthful and honest in his presentation. It is an example of the way judges are increasingly considering lifestyle factors such as:

• Business dealings
• Spending behaviour
• Control as opposed to direct ownership of assets
• Circumstances like property occupation

Justice Peel rejected the evidence that the husband had no connection with ‘Trust A’, referencing an email in which the husband had referred to it as ‘my family trust’. The Judge found that trustees were evasive, had refused to give full details and that the husband had hidden behind the trustees to prevent the Court having access to information it required. Accordingly, the Court drew an inference that the husband was not disclosing the full facts to the Court.

The ultimate outcome was that the husband was found to have considerable wealth. The Court ordered the wife to retain the matrimonial home and also ordered the husband to pay her an overall lump sum of £2,025,000. The parties combined legal costs were £850,000.

Rayma Collins commented: “The judge in this case adopted a pragmatic approach to non-disclosure involving overseas assets, trusts and corporate structures. Rather than adjourn the case to allow for an expert accountant to further consider the issues, which would have resulted in more costs and delay, the Judge addressed the wife’s needs and found that if the outcome was unfavourable to the husband, he only had himself to blame.”

The second recently published case (DR v ES and others [2026] EWFC 15)  involved a wife bringing an application for legal fees funding in a long running matrimonial financial case involving contested assets of between £8 million to £23 million. The amount sought by the wife for legal fees was also in dispute.

Within her application the wife sought legal fees funding from the husband of a little over £726,000, to include legal costs already incurred. This application followed an earlier application by her 2 years prior, where she was awarded £736,000 for the same purpose.

The court helpfully summarised applicable principles and highlighted that where disclosure by the payer is obviously deficient, the Court would not hesitate to make robust assumptions about the ability of the payer to pay and should err on the side of the payee. The Court ordered payment by the husband of £560,120, to include a proportion for legal costs already incurred. The Judge commented that in the absence of definitive evidence of the husband’s ability to pay the award, he had previously met such costs provisions in broadly similar circumstances.

Rayma Collins continued: “This case emphasises the Court’s willingness to draw adverse inferences where disclosure is deficient. This decision in favour of the wife ensured that she had equality of arms within the litigation, an essential component when seeking to access justice.”

“What is clear from both of these judgments is that the Court places paramount importance on full and frank disclosure within matrimonial financial proceedings and that when a party fails in that duty, the Court will not hesitate to draw adverse inferences, make assumptions on asset values and penalise a non-discloser by making orders against them. These cases demonstrate that attempts by a party to present themselves as living a penurious existence while in reality thriving, are unlikely to fool the matrimonial judiciary whose overarching aim is to achieve a fair and just outcome for all concerned.”

For more information about matrimonial proceedings or Furley Page, please contact the Family Law Team on 01227 763939 or email family@furleypage.co.uk.