A significant concern of many clients is the extent to which the court will look at post separation/post breakdown of relationship spending. In other words, one party or the other using income and/or capital in risky investments or lifestyle spending that amounts to extravagance in an attempt to put assets beyond the court’s reach and beyond the claims of the other party.

There are a sequence of cases which have been reported which assist in understanding the approach the court is likely to take.

• Norris v Norris – the court found that the husband had overspent by around £350,0000 in a little over 2 years.  Amongst his spending the husband had decided to commit himself to taking delivery of a £115,000 Ferrari.

The husband could not sensibly answer the question “why should the wife be disadvantaged in the split of the assets by the husband’s reckless expenditure?”.

The court added back in respect of husband’s spending.
 

• McCartney v Mills McCartney – here Sir Paul McCartney submitted that over £1,600,000 should be added back into the wife’s assets due to her reckless overspending post separation.

The court added back £500,000 into the wife’s assets citing by way of example excessive spending on security, chartering planes and helicopters.

Take care with the post separation decisions about what to buy or not as the case may be.