A woman has been awarded more than £2 million after a court found her former husband had failed to disclose the true extent of his wealth during financial remedy proceedings.
The Family Court concluded that the husband had access to undisclosed assets held through trust structures, despite presenting his financial position as having little or no personal wealth.

The judge found that the husband had not been “fully truthful and honest” and had concealed resources likely held within trusts or other arrangements. As a result, the court determined that it could not rely on his account of his finances and was entitled to draw adverse inferences.

The husband was ordered to pay a total of £2.075 million to the wife. This included £525,000 to clear her debts, and a further £1.55 million to meet her future income needs on a clean break basis.

The wife was also permitted to retain the former matrimonial home, valued at around £837,500.

The couple had been married for 19 years and had lived a high-value international lifestyle funded through the husband’s business interests. The husband claimed that his business group was effectively worthless and that he held no meaningful assets.

The court rejected that position. It found that the husband had structured his financial affairs through complex corporate and trust arrangements and had deliberately distanced himself from personal ownership of wealth.

A key issue in the case was a family trust which held a substantial interest in a group of technology companies. Although the husband denied any beneficial interest, the court concluded that he was the ultimate beneficial owner and could access the trust’s assets. It found that the trustees would act on his instructions and that there were no meaningful barriers preventing him from benefiting from the trust.

The court was also critical of the lack of disclosure surrounding the trust and related financial structures. It found that relevant information had not been provided and that the husband had relied on that lack of transparency to obscure his true financial position.

In light of the uncertainty created by the non-disclosure, the court assessed the case primarily by reference to the wife’s financial needs. It concluded that she required around £100,000 per year, which was capitalised over a 20-year period to reach the final award.
The judgment highlights the risks for parties who fail to give full and frank disclosure in financial proceedings, with courts prepared to infer the existence of hidden wealth and make awards accordingly.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

Source:

Case details
M K v S K
Neutral Citation: [2026] EWFC 28
Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Justice Peel
Judgment date: 11 February 2026