In Awolowo v Awolowo and Linksave Ventures [2025] EWCA Civ 641, the Court of Appeal issued a sharp correction to a first instance judgment, firmly rejecting the uncritical acceptance of a Nigerian consent order and casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of a purported £1.6 million loan—reaffirming that in cross-border financial remedy cases, unsupported offshore arrangements will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
This is a significant intervention into factual findings in the context of cross-border financial remedy proceedings
What Happened?
At its core, the appeal asked if the husband truly owed £1.6 million to his brother’s Nigerian firm. Next, that “debt” led to an interim charging order on the London home and shaped the wife’s Part III application after her Nigerian divorce.
This decision reminds us why we need clear documentary evidence and the right burden of proof. Moreover, foreign orders alone cannot shield assets from English family courts.
Key Legal and Factual Issues
On 14 September 2023, HHJ Vincent issued the Part III judgment under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Next, the court decided if the £1.8 million home belonged to the husband or to the Intervenor company trust.
The Court of Appeal (Moylan LJ giving the lead judgment) found multiple serious errors in the trial judge’s analysis that collectively warranted appellate intervention—an outcome exceptionally rare in financial remedies appeals.
Key Findings of the Court of Appeal
1. Mis-understanding the Nature and Effect of the Nigerian Court Order
In fact, the Nigerian court never tested the debt’s validity. Instead, it simply approved a private settlement. Consequently, the trial judge mistook this for proof of the loan’s legitimacy.
However, the Court of Appeal clarified that the Nigerian court had not adjudicated on the validity of the debt. It had merely entered a consent order, reflecting the parties’ settlement, with no scrutiny of the underlying documents or their authenticity. This constituted a fundamental misunderstanding by the trial judge.
“There was no adjudication in respect of the validity of the debt at all… [The trial judge’s conclusion] comprised a ‘demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence’.”
— [Moylan LJ, para 96–98]
2. Adverse Inferences from Evidential Silence
Neither the husband nor the Intervenor produced any contemporaneous proof. For example, they offered no bank records, accounting entries, loan statements, or board minutes.
Yet the judge drew no adverse inference and even faulted the wife for not disproving a loan that was never proven.
The Court of Appeal reversed this, confirming that the absence of expected documentary evidence from the party asserting a liability—especially in a corporate context—warrants scepticism and adverse inference.
3. Misapplication of the Burden of Proof
The judge incorrectly placed the evidential burden on the wife to prove that the loan was a sham. The Court of Appeal held that once she raised legitimate doubts and highlighted anomalies, it fell to the husband and the Intervenor to prove the debt’s existence and commercial basis.
This is particularly relevant in contexts involving alleged intra-family or intra-group debt arrangements, often used in attempts to insulate matrimonial property from financial claims.
“Any balanced analysis of the evidence required the judge to take into account the almost complete absence of any documents… The judge inverted the position and took the absence of such evidence against the wife.” — [Moylan LJ, para 103]
Implications for Professional Advisors and Offshore Trust & Corporate Structures
This ruling warns offshore trustees, directors, and advisors: don’t assume secret structures hold up in English matrimonial proceedings:
- Transparency and Evidence: Courts will critically assess whether claimed debts are genuine commercial obligations or convenient devices to defeat spousal claims. Lack of credible documentation will invite adverse findings, even where the parties rely on offshore structures or foreign proceedings.
- Use of Foreign Judgments: Consent orders or judgments obtained abroad are not determinative in England unless they result from a contested hearing on the merits. Attempting to launder an untested agreement through a foreign court may backfire.
- Creditor vs Spouse Conflict: As reaffirmed in Harman v Glencross and applied here, English courts retain the discretion to determine the competing claims of third-party creditors and spouses in the distribution of matrimonial property. The balancing exercise is undertaken during the substantive financial proceedings—not beforehand.
- Legal Representation and Strategic Risks: Intervenors (especially those asserting proprietary or secured interests) must be properly advised, as missteps in litigation strategy can undermine otherwise viable claims. This is particularly true where directors or affiliated parties are aligned with one spouse.
Final Thought
Frank Arndt, founder of Paradigm Family Law LLP says: “In today’s globalised financial environment, where family wealth is often interwoven with offshore corporate and trust structures, this judgment reinforces the English court’s robust and evidence-led approach to transparency and fairness in financial remedies.
It is a clear warning that formalities matter, and that substance will be scrutinised over form—especially when matrimonial property rights are at stake.”
Speak to a Specialist
Paradigm Family Law, has an internationally recognised and award winning team of family lawyers. We work on a fixed-fee basis because we believe certainty is key.
Our partnership with Whatwouldajudgesay.com aligns perfectly with that principle—bringing transparency and structure to one of life’s most difficult transitions.
If you’re considering divorce or separation and want to better understand your financial position, speak to us. An early judicial view could guide you forward.
Call Frank or Evelyn to discuss and explore ways in which we can help. Paradigm Family Law offers a free initial consultation with a top-rated family lawyer and our fixed fee solutions cover financial or children proceedings from start to finish.
Call us on 01904 217225 or email [email protected].