Edward Floyd highlights the difficulty of revisiting ancillary relief orders
In Gordon (formerly Stefanou) v Stefanou [2010] EWCA Civ 1074 there was an 18-year marriage without children. By the time of judgment in September 2006, there had been a 10-year period of separation. Mr Justice Singer awarded capital to the wife comprising of the matrimonial home (with equity of c£900,000) and a two-stage lump sum of £1.1m. The husband retained his entire shareholding in his business. The shareholding was likened to “non-matrimonial” property because the growth in the company occurred in the period after separation. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that the husband would retain his risk-laden shareholding while the wife retained the home, being the “tangible” wealth of the family.
The husband’s expert stated in the proceedings that his shareholding had no appreciable value, whereas the wife’s expert valued his interest at £30m. Between the hearing and judgment (a period of four months) the husband achieved a refinancing of the company, which he did not disclose. One year after the judgment, the husband’s company was sold at a
