© Getty images
Lucy Hitchen ponders whether appointing an expert could have produced a different outcome in a recent case
- Looks at MK v SK, a financial remedies case. Describes ‘blatant non-disclosure’ by the husband about his finances, and questions the judge’s decision not to appoint an expert and to anonymise the parties.
- Notes a single joint expert could have unearthed useful information, albeit perhaps somewhat limited, but delays and costs remain significant factors.
- Includes commentary that the threat of anonymity being waivered could act as a deterrent and encourage greater transparency from non-disclosing spouses.
Retired judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn has described a husband as getting away with ‘blue murder’, when commenting on the recent High Court decision of MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28.
In MK v SK, the sharing principle was not applied after the court struggled to obtain accurate and extensive details about the husband’s financial assets. Mr Justice Peel recognised the husband had concealed details about his wealth, but concluded the ‘better approach’ and ‘most practical’, was to decide the wife’s settlement based on her ‘needs’.
The
