At Paradigm Family Law LLP, staying current with judicial developments is fundamental to providing accurate and strategic family law advice. The courts regularly refine how financial remedies, divorce procedure and litigation conduct are approached.
For lawyers advising high-net-worth and internationally connected families, these judgments are not simply technical developments. They directly influence litigation strategy, disclosure obligations and the practical dynamics of financial remedy proceedings.
In this series, Frank Arndt, founding partner of Paradigm Family Law LLP and a specialist in complex financial remedy disputes, highlights recent family law decisions and explains their practical implications for practitioners and clients navigating sophisticated divorce litigation.
This financial remedy case law update highlights several recent decisions that illustrate how the courts are approaching disclosure, asset transfers and litigation conduct.
Divorce / “Decree Absolute”
In Labeja v Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B) (24 February 2026) the Family Court considered an application by Dr Charles Labeja to nullify a 2014 Decree Absolute which had dissolved his marriage to his late wife.
The husband alleged that the divorce had been the product of a fraudulent conspiracy orchestrated by his stepson. He maintained that he had never been served with divorce papers and that the couple had remained happily married until his wife’s death.
His Honour Judge Farquhar, sitting in the Family Court, rejected the application. The court found compelling evidence that the husband had in fact been properly served and that his claim of ignorance regarding the proceedings was untruthful.
Although clerical errors were identified in the original documentation — including mistakes concerning the marriage date and certain names — the court exercised its jurisdiction to correct those errors rather than invalidate the decree.
The judgment emphasises the importance of finality in divorce proceedings. Nearly a decade had passed before the application was brought, and there was no credible evidence of procedural irregularity. The court therefore confirmed the validity of the divorce and ordered the husband to pay costs of £33,750 to the respondents.
Source: Labeja v Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja & Anor [2026] EWFC 53 (B) (24 February 2026)
Section 37 Matrimonial Causes Act / Treatment of Loans
GHJ v FDS [2026] EWFC 54 (B) (05 January 2026) concerns preliminary issues arising from the financial remedy proceedings following the divorce of the parties.
The central question was whether the husband’s transfer of company shares to a business associate should be set aside under Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The wife argued that the transaction was intended to defeat her financial claims.
The court accepted that the husband’s motivation was likely to frustrate the wife’s entitlement. However, the application to set aside the transaction was ultimately refused. The business in question had become largely worthless, and reversing the transfer would have produced a disproportionate outcome.
The judgment also examined a series of financial advances from family members. Although documentation existed describing the payments as gifts — largely for mortgage lending purposes — the court concluded that they were properly characterised as loans.
Nevertheless, the court categorised these obligations as “soft loans”. While technically repayable, the family members involved were unlikely to pursue enforcement proceedings.
These findings assist the court in determining the composition of the marital asset pool ahead of the final financial remedy hearing scheduled for 2026.
Source: GHJ v FDS [2026] EWFC 54 (B) (05 January 2026)
Costs/Disclosure – Financial Remedy Case Law Update
In BY v CG (No. 3: Costs) [2026] EWFC 50 (03 March 2026) Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Allen KC considered the allocation of litigation costs following a high-value financial remedy dispute.
The wife sought recovery of more than £621,000 in legal costs. While the Family Court ordinarily applies the principle that each party bears their own costs, the judge concluded that a departure from this rule was justified.
The court ordered the husband to pay £79,000 towards the wife’s costs. The principal reason was the husband’s provision of a knowingly inaccurate valuation of a business asset during his initial financial disclosure. The court referenced the principles established in Gohil and Sharland regarding the consequences of dishonest financial disclosure.
The award also included costs relating to an unsuccessful interim application concerning expert evidence, where the judge applied what was described as a “clean sheet” exercise of discretion.
However, the court rejected the majority of the wife’s claim. Her own litigation conduct — including unreasonable open offers and a failure to negotiate constructively once the financial position became clearer — weighed against a larger costs order.
The decision reinforces a consistent judicial message: misleading financial disclosure and litigation misconduct can attract financial penalties even in cases involving substantial wealth.
Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2026/50.html
Professional context
Paradigm Family Law LLP advises clients across a wide range of family law matters, from domestic financial remedy cases in England and Wales to complex disputes involving international assets and cross-border structures.
Frank Arndt and his team specialises in high-value financial remedy strategy, particularly where cases involve international property portfolios, trusts, corporate ownership structures or business interests. These disputes often require careful financial analysis, strategic litigation planning and coordination with accountants, tax advisers and corporate lawyers.
Alongside this work, the firm regularly advises clients whose circumstances are centred within the UK, including cases involving family homes, business interests, pensions and other marital assets.
The judgments discussed above demonstrate how the Family Court continues to address issues such as disclosure, asset transfers, family loans and litigation conduct. These principles apply across the spectrum of financial remedy cases and can materially affect the composition of the marital asset pool and the eventual outcome of proceedings.
Need help?
If you are navigating a divorce, jurisdiction challenge, children matter or financial remedy proceedings, early strategic advice can make a significant difference.
Paradigm Family Law offers a free initial consultation and fixed-fee solutions, giving clarity on cost from the outset. The team advises clients across England and Wales, including those with international, business, and high-value financial arrangements.
For a confidential discussion about your situation, contact Frank Arndt or Evelyn Peacock, call 01904 217225 or email info@paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk.
Further insight from Paradigm
For additional reading on financial remedy strategy and complex divorce litigation, see our wider commentary and case analysis across the Paradigm Family Law library:
Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements: Planning for Love, Life, and Legal Certainty
Protecting International Wealth and Complex Assets During Divorce
