A recent decision by Nominet UK highlights the evidential hurdles businesses must overcome when...
Service update: Unfortunately, Willett & Co no longer offer family law services. If you need assistance with divorce, financial remedy, or pre-nuptial agreements, please seek a specialist family solicitor. We continue to advise on private client, property, commercial, crime, employment and dispute resolution matters.
Key Takeaway on Conduct under Section 25(2)(g) MCA 1973
In a recent Family Court decision concerning financial remedies following a pre-nuptial agreement (PNA), the Court allowed the wife to amend her case to plead conduct under Section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Background: Pre-Nuptial Agreement and Alleged Dissipation of Assets
The PNA provided that the husband was entitled to over £6.4 million.
The wife alleged the husband had already taken £2.8 million of her funds and £1.4 million from a joint account without her knowledge or consent £4.2 million in total, arguing this should be treated as part of his entitlement.
She further alleged the husband fabricated emails intended to mislead her and the Court about whether she knew of, or consented to, one transfer.
Procedural Point: When Must Conduct Be Formally Pleaded?
At the First Appointment, the order recorded that the wife was not advancing a conduct case. The husband accepted she could argue he had already received funds, but said motivation/bad faith could only be explored if Section 25(2)(g) was formally pleaded. The wife maintained her case was unchanged, now augmented by later-produced emails.
Court’s Reasoning: Threshold vs. Fairness in Implementing a PNA
The Court held the wife’s position had always been that money was taken without her full understanding and that the husband intended that outcome so there was no ambush. Even if the Section 25(2)(g) threshold were not ultimately met, factual findings could still influence a fair outcome when applying a pre-nuptial agreement.
Practical Insight for Financial Remedy Cases
Financial misconduct and litigation conduct may affect outcomes where it would be inequitable to disregard behaviour.
Conduct need not always meet the strict Section 25(2)(g) threshold to be relevant to the fair implementation of a PNA.
Parties should consider formally pleading conduct where allegations include dissipation, forgery/fabrication, or bad faith, to ensure the Court can examine motivation and credibility.