The Business Owner Who Refuses to Disclose: Interim Relief and the Inherited Farm
Amara (48) and Tom (52) married in 2001 and separated nine months ago. Amara gave up a legal secretarial career in 2008 to care for their three children, now 20, 17 and 14; the eldest is at university and the youngest attends a private school costing £18,000 a year. Tom is the sole director and 100% shareholder of a construction company he built during the marriage. He says it is worth 'about £400,000' but has refused to provide management accounts, and the last filed accounts show net assets of £1.9 million. The family home is worth £1.2 million with £300,000 outstanding on the mortgage. Tom also owns a 200-acre farm in Wales, inherited from his father in 2019, worth about £2.5 million and generating £60,000 a year in rental income which has been paid into the parties' joint account. Tom's pension is £900,000; Amara's is £40,000. Since separation he has paid her £1,500 a month, calling it 'generous'. A divorce petition and Form A have been issued. Tom has just told Amara by text that he is transferring the company's main depot to his brother for £1 next month.
1. What interim applications should Amara's solicitor make now, and on what reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Two applications should be issued immediately, plus one disclosure step.
1. Interim periodical payments (maintenance pending suit). On an interim basis the court does not attempt a sharing exercise; it concentrates on immediate needs and the payer's ability to meet them. Amara's needs are concrete: mortgage, utilities, school fees of £18,000 a year, and three children, two of them dependent. £1,500 a month does not cover the school fees alone. The argument is not 'she is used to a high standard' in the abstract but 'her reasonable outgoings are £X and Tom's income from salary, dividends and farm rent plainly exceeds that'.
2. A legal services payment order. Amara's £40,000 pension is not liquid and she has no income. Without representation she cannot test the company valuation. The court looks at whether the applicant can fund the litigation elsewhere and whether the respondent can pay without jeopardising his business.
3. Interim lump sum for a forensic accountant. The valuation of a private company cannot be done on a Form E alone; a report is needed and the court can order a contribution to its cost where the asset is controlled solely by one party.
4. Disclosure. Seek an order for management accounts, three years of company accounts, dividend vouchers, and bank statements, with a costs sanction for non-compliance. Filing a 'without prejudice' negotiating letter is no substitute.
2. How should the court treat the Welsh farm when dividing assets?
Read the worked answer
The starting point is that an asset inherited by one spouse is not automatically excluded, and not automatically shared. The court asks two questions in sequence.
First, has the asset been brought into the matrimonial pot? The farm was inherited in 2019, eighteen years into a twenty-four-year marriage, so it was never 'pre-marital'. Critically, the £60,000 annual rent went into the joint account and funded family life. That is strong evidence of mingling: Tom cannot both treat the income as family money and the capital as his alone.
Second, does either party's need require recourse to it? Where needs cannot otherwise be met, the court will invade non-matrimonial property regardless of its origin. Here the remaining assets - house equity of £900,000, a company worth far more than Tom admits, and £940,000 of pension - may meet Amara's housing and income needs without touching the farm. If so, the farm is likely to be left with Tom.
The practical consequence is that Amara's case should not be 'give me half the farm' but 'the farm shows Tom's resources and income, and it means he can pay a larger share of the liquid assets and a pension share without hardship'. Argue the farm as a resource and a credibility point, not as a target.
3. What can be done about the proposed £1 transfer of the depot to Tom's brother?
Read the worked answer
This needs action within days, and it is the clearest example of why interim protection exists.
Transfer at an undervalue. Legislation in most common law jurisdictions allows the court to set aside a disposition made with the intention of defeating a financial claim and which has that effect. A sale for £1 to the respondent's brother, announced by text shortly after Form A was issued, is close to a textbook case. The court must be satisfied of the intention; the timing, the relationship of the parties and the absence of any commercial rationale are the evidence.
Freezing injunction. A freezing order restrains Tom from disposing of assets up to a stated value. Three things must be shown: a good arguable case on the merits, a real risk of dissipation, and proportionality. The text message is the dissipation evidence. Risks: the applicant must give a cross-undertaking in damages, must make full and frank disclosure, and the order is expensive. It should be sought without notice only if there is genuine urgency, because the brother is affected and must be able to respond.
Sequencing. First, write to Tom's solicitor requiring a written undertaking not to dispose of the depot or any company asset. That is cheap, quick and often effective. If refused or ignored, apply for the freezing order and the setting-aside relief in the same application. Also notify the company's bank and, if the disposal completes, join the brother as a respondent.