Judge cuts divorce payouts over conduct by spouses
Is abusive behaviour starting to carry financial weight in divorce proceedings?
In LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473, the High Court considered whether coercive and controlling behaviour within a marriage could justify a departure from the usual principle of equal division of matrimonial assets in financial remedy proceedings.
Brief facts of the case
The parties married in 2011 and separated in 2023. They had one child together. The case involved a complex background, including findings that the wife had engaged in deceit and abusive behaviour during the marriage. In addition to this, wife had falsely presented herself as a successful lawyer on track to becoming a High Court judge, she was prosecuted for benefit fraud in 2018 and in separate Children Act proceedings, the court found that she had committed significant abuse against the husband, resulting in an order for no contact between her and the child.
At the time of the financial remedy hearing, the wife had been charged by police with coercive and controlling behaviour. The financial proceedings were also complicated by the parties’ assets. The husband had substantial wealth, including property and business assets, with matrimonial assets valued at approximately £6.6 million. The husband argued that the wife’s conduct during the marriage justified a significant departure from equal sharing of those assets.
Judgment
Mr Justice Cusworth accepted that the starting point in financial remedy cases is normally equal sharing of matrimonial assets. However, he held that there were reasons why equality would not produce a fair outcome in this case.
Three key factors justified a departure from the usual approach:
1.The nature of certain assets: Some property held in joint names had not been treated as matrimonial property during the marriage.
2.Lack of financial contribution: The wife had made no financial contribution to the key assets.
3.Serious misconduct: Most significantly, the court found that it would be unfair to ignore the wife’s conduct, particularly the coercive and controlling behaviour she had been found to have committed.
Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to take personal misconduct into account unless it has a clearly identifiable financial consequence. Previous case law suggested that there must be a measurable financial loss caused by the wrongdoing.
However, Cusworth J recognised that in cases involving coercive control or domestic abuse, the financial consequences may be difficult to quantify precisely. The absence of a clear monetary calculation, he said, should not automatically prevent the court from considering the impact of such behaviour when determining a fair outcome.
The court reduced the wife’s entitlement to the matrimonial assets by 40%. Her final award was a £750,000 lump sum, representing a substantial departure from an equal division of the assets.
Importance:
The decision is notable because successful conduct arguments in financial remedy proceedings are rare. Courts have historically set a very high threshold for taking misconduct into account when dividing assets.
This case suggests a potential shift in approach. The judgment indicates that serious abusive conduct, particularly coercive or controlling behaviour, may justify a departure from equal sharing even where the precise financial consequences cannot be clearly quantified.
The ruling therefore raises wider questions about whether the law should adopt a more holistic approach to conduct within financial remedy proceedings, especially in cases involving domestic abuse.
However, practitioners and parties should proceed with caution. The threshold for a successful conduct argument remains high, and pursuing such arguments can increase litigation costs and risks. Until clearer guidance can be provided, the role of misconduct in financial remedies will remain an evolving area of family law.
For now, LP v MP highlights a developing judicial willingness to consider the real impact of abusive behaviour within marriage when determining financial outcomes on divorce.
Morgan Kilmister
Paralegal – Family Department
This article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute technical, financial, legal advice or any other type of professional advice and is no substitute for specific advice based on your individual circumstances. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article. For more information, please click here.