Dishonesty Does Not Pay

In a divorce case (Joy v Joy-Morancho & Others) that started as long ago as 2011, Sir Peter Singer has just awarded £334,000 costs to be paid to the wife by the husband. The husband should pay the legal costs that the wife has incurred since May 2013 within 14 days.

The High Court judge has made it clear that his costs judgment against a dishonest party should act as a deterrent to others considering deceiving the court. In this case the husband’s conduct in trying to explain his financial position amounted to “blatant dishonesty” as he had deliberately tried to hide the true situation regarding his past, present and future financial position. The judge described one particular lie about the evidence of a witness as “breath-taking”. Sir Peter Singer went on to say that it would be ‘grossly unfair’ to the wife not to regard the husband’s conduct as the ‘prime touchstone’ in the case, and he characterised the husband’s case as a ‘rotten edifice founded on concealment and misrepresentation and therefore a sham, a charade, bogus, spurious and contrived’.

In brief, the facts are that the husband had proposed that the wife should only receive nominal maintenance whereas the wife was seeking a lump sum of £27 million. This was on the basis that the husband’s assets were at least £54 million. This included a portfolio of vintage cars valued at £20 million and owned by a trust.

The outcome ordered by Sir Peter Singer was that the husband should pay maintenance of £120,000 per annum and he adjourned the wife’s capital claims.

The parties have estimated legal fees in the region of £2 million in addition to an unknown level of costs incurred in proceedings in France and Switzerland.

This case should serve as a stark warning to those who believe they are able to conceal assets in order to avoid claims made by their spouse in divorce proceedings. Whilst such case are few in number the costs awarded in this case this should act as a deterrent.