Doe vs Roe

This case involved the division of matrimonial assets following the husband's criminal conviction for murder, with significant implications for the wife's financial future.

TLDR:

• Husband convicted of murder, impacting matrimonial asset division.
• Wife sought a larger share due to husband's conduct.
• Court awarded 75% of assets to the wife, citing husband's misconduct.

The claimant, Mrs. Doe, sought a larger share of the matrimonial assets following the criminal conviction of her husband, Mr. Doe, for the murder of Mr. Strickland. The case centered on the impact of the husband's criminal conduct on the division of assets.

During the trial, the court examined the husband's involvement in the murder and its subsequent effects on the wife's life and financial stability. The wife argued that the husband's conduct was so egregious that it warranted a significant departure from the standard 50/50 division of assets.

The court found that the husband's criminal actions had profoundly affected the wife's mental and physical health, as well as her ability to earn a living. The court noted that the wife had been unable to work due to anxiety and had suffered a breakdown following the husband's imprisonment.

In its judgment, the court emphasized the severity of the husband's conduct, describing it as 'outrageous' and 'utterly inequitable to disregard.' The court awarded 75% of the matrimonial assets to the wife, recognizing the lasting impact of the husband's actions on her well-being.

The court also addressed the husband's financial misconduct, noting that he had transferred property to his sister for no value and had engaged in other financial machinations. The court found the husband's evidence to be lacking in credibility and supported the wife's claims regarding his financial misconduct.

Furthermore, the court considered the husband's litigation misconduct, noting that he had engaged in delaying tactics and failed to comply with court orders. The court concluded that the husband's conduct throughout the proceedings had been abusive and warranted a penalty in costs.

Ultimately, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial properties, with the proceeds to be divided 75% to the wife and 25% to the husband. The court also extended the time for the husband to appeal the decision, given his status as a personal litigant and current incarceration.

Legal representatives: Ms. Jane O'Grady for the claimant, Mr. John Smith for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Green

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EWHC 789 (Fam)