A wife has been awarded £15 million after a judge ruled that her husband, a property developer, had been dishonest throughout high-value divorce proceedings that spanned several years.

The couple had been together for more than two decades and have two adult children. Their relationship ended in early 2022, prompting a series of hearings over three years to resolve the financial issues.

In assessing the husband’s business interests, Judge Edward Hess acknowledged both positive and negative features of his conduct. He described the husband as a highly capable entrepreneur, stating: “I am entirely satisfied that the substantial wealth that exists in this family has all been created by the efforts of the husband and that he is a skilled, successful and hardworking operator in the property development business.”

However, the judge also set out serious criticisms. He said the husband was “a fundamentally dishonest man”, willing to be “wholly and deliberately dishonest when it suits him” and found that he had a tendency to create documents or forge signatures when it advanced his position.

The judgment focused on the value of two major business structures: Michael Bros Ltd (MBL), in which the husband holds a 34.375% share, and Hartsfield Investments UK Ltd, which he owns beneficially. The court valued the husband’s MBL interest at just under £7 million after tax and added back £646,988 after finding that a 2023 dividend had been diverted through an artificial arrangement.

For the Hartsfield group, the judge adopted a base valuation of £24.87 million but added more than £5 million after identifying a previously overlooked payments due to be made by a local authority. A separate development was performing better than earlier forecasts, generating higher-than-expected rental income.

Judge Hess concluded that the family’s wealth—around £39.9 million for sharing purposes—was sufficient for a standard sharing approach, even if significant tax liabilities emerged.

The husband had proposed that the wife receive no lump sum, while the wife sought £27 million. The judge rejected both positions, ordering the husband to pay three lump sums totalling £15 million. Maintenance will continue until the second payment is made. The family home will be sold, with the net proceeds going to the wife and credited against the final lump sum.

A reverse contingent lump sum was also imposed, allowing the husband to recover up to £7.5 million from the wife if future HMRC claims arise.

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

Michael v Michael (No 3)
Family Court (sitting at the High Court level)
His Honour Judge Edward Hess
[2025] EWFC 245
11 June 2025