A recent decision from the Central Family Court offers valuable insight into how the courts approach financial remedy claims where both parties are high earners, share childcare equally, and have complex asset portfolios. In OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156 (B), His Honour Judge Edward Hess delivered a detailed judgment following a four-day final hearing between two former City professionals.
Case Summary
The parties, both highly educated and formerly employed in the finance sector, separated in 2023 after a long marriage. They have three children under 10, whose care is shared equally. The wife moved into rented accommodation while the husband remained in the former matrimonial home, valued at £1.85 million.
Despite their equal parenting arrangements, the financial landscape was far from balanced. The husband had accumulated significant assets, including RSUs, private equity investments, and a substantial pension. The wife, having stepped back from finance to work in the social sector, had more modest resources.
Key Issues and Findings
- Matrimonial vs Non-Matrimonial Assets: The court carefully distinguished between assets acquired during the marriage and those deemed non-matrimonial, such as the husband’s inheritance and post-separation bonuses.
- Transparency and Disclosure: The husband’s initial lack of clarity regarding assets held on behalf of his father led to significant legal costs. The judge declined to penalise either party but emphasised the importance of early, transparent disclosure.
- Sharing Principle Applied: The court awarded the wife a lump sum of £897,092 and transferred joint investments and accounts to her, achieving a 50/50 division of matrimonial assets. No pension sharing was ordered.
- No Spousal Maintenance: Given the capital awarded and the wife’s earning capacity, the court imposed a clean break.
- Child Maintenance and School Fees: Although the court declined to order child maintenance due to equal care and the husband’s impending redundancy, it directed that he pay 75% of the children’s school fees, recognising his greater capital and earning capacity.
Practical Takeaways
- Equal care does not mean equal financial outcomes. The court may still adjust capital division and school fee contributions based on resources and earning capacity.
- Post-separation income and bonuses may be excluded from sharing, especially where the separation is recent and clearly defined.
- Transparency matters. Delays or confusion in disclosure can increase costs and erode trust, even if ultimately resolved.
- Clean breaks remain the goal, but only where needs are met and fairness is achieved.
What This Means for You
If you’re separating and share care of your children, this case shows that financial fairness doesn’t end with equal parenting. Asset division, school fees, and future income all require careful consideration.
If you have complex assets, inherited wealth, or post-separation earnings, early legal advice and full disclosure are essential to achieving a fair and efficient outcome.
Contact our team to discuss your financial position and ensure your settlement reflects both your needs and your contributions.