Built Environment & Infrastructure Risk Management
-
Search
Analysis is based on English law and case law from the courts of England and Wales; not applicable outside this jurisdiction.
Divorce is never just the end of a relationship – the financial implications are profound for all concerned. When emotions collide with economics, fairness becomes more than a principle: it’s a necessity. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act (“MCA”) 1973, English law provides a solid framework for equitable distribution. However, modern wealth structures spanning global jurisdictions and digital assets have complicated the process, so that achieving fairness for both parties is now increasingly complex.
Recent high-profile decisions such as White v White (2000), Miller v Miller: McFarlane v McFarlane (2006), and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Standish v Standish (2025) reinforce a critical truth: equitable settlements are not just aspirational – they are essential. These judgments highlight that a fair outcome is never straightforward. Instead it is nuanced, driven by context and often requires specialist expertise.
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act sets out six fundamental guiding factors around which financial remedies must be designed. These are: welfare of children; income, earning capacity and resources; financial needs and obligations; standard of living during marriage; age, health and duration of marriage; and financial and non-financial contributions.
As Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead observed in White v White (2000):
“There is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles. Discrimination is the antithesis of fairness.” This principle introduced a vital “yardstick of equality”, ensuring that fairness is measured against objective standards, rather than subjective assumptions. Marking a decisive break from gendered assumptions, equality was now the benchmark against which outcomes should be tested.
While the law provides structure, reality complicates the picture. Today, three hugely significant factors in the distribution of wealth have come into play. First, globalised wealth, covering assets held through offshore trusts and layered corporate structures. Second, digital assets: cryptocurrencies, NFTs and decentralised finance instruments that defy traditional tracing. Finally, lifestyle valuation, now more complicated than ever: from private equity stakes to art collections, defining a person’s “standard of living” requires intense scrutiny.
These complexities mean that equitable outcomes require far more than straightforward legal interpretation – they demand forensic precision and sometimes cross‑border enforcement, to preserve assets and orders. A detailed 2024 paper Examining the Legal Status of Digital Assets as Property: A Comparative Analysis of Jurisdictional Approaches highlights the ongoing complexity of defining, valuing and dividing these assets, as traditional divorce valuations face new legal and practical hurdles.
An inequitable settlement can destabilise financial security, prolong litigation and damage reputations, especially when hidden assets surface later. Conversely, a fair settlement preserves dignity and reduces conflict. It recognises both financial and non-financial contributions. And it provides predictability, not only for families but also for any businesses impacted by the terms of the settlement.
Crucially, the courts will act to preserve and enforce orders where there is non‑compliance, even across borders. In extreme cases, this can include committal applications for contempt of court.
High-value divorces often involve intricate and somewhat obscure financial landscapes; relying solely on standard disclosure is therefore risky. In these circumstances, forensic accountants and asset-tracing specialists add critical value. They can uncover hidden assets such as offshore accounts, shell entities and digital wallets. They can also trace complex transactions, following funds across borders and through layered structures. They can provide vital, defensible valuations for businesses, intellectual property and alternative investments. And they can offer expert testimony, supporting equitable outcomes in court or arbitration.
Fast-developing technology serves to amplify this range of capability, bringing a depth and scope that takes these layers of insight to another level. Advanced analytics, AI-driven data mining and blockchain forensics enable consultants to uncover and illuminate details that traditional audits miss.
Penn State Law Review’s 2025 analysis Cryptocurrency, NFTs, and the ‘Metaverse’: Addressing the expanding world of Virtual Assets in Divorce Proceedings explores this dynamic in depth, proposing methods for identifying, characterising, valuing, and equitably dividing such assets in a shifting landscape.
The facts (judgment 11 June 2025): In a long‑running UHNW dispute involving more than £39.9m of assets, the Family Court found that an offshore structure presented as a trustee‑run arrangement was a sham trust. The judge concluded that the husband remained the true beneficial owner and ordered £15m to be paid to the wife. Along the way, the court addressed private company valuations; dividend/debt treatment; tax consequences flowing from the sham finding; and enforcement steps against sustained non‑compliance.
This outcome is important for several reasons. Firstly, it proves that form cannot defeat substance. Where evidence shows control and beneficial ownership, the court will treat those assets as available for division, irrespective of offshore veneers. It also shows that forensic evidence wins the day, because the result turned on meticulous document analysis; governance and control testing; and valuation work typical of a multidisciplinary forensic investigation. Third, the case offers a clear enforcement signal, as the judgment sits with a broader 2025 enforcement pattern (e.g. Collardeau v Fuchs). This reminds parties that attempts to obstruct orders can trigger preservation, receivership and contempt routes.
In the modern divorce market, trusts, nominees and layered vehicles will be penetrated where evidence supports doing so. That means independent forensic analysis is no longer an optional extra. Instead, it is now a decisive element of the eventual outcome.
At Control Risks, we combine forensic accounting, digital investigation and strategic advisory to deliver clarity in the most complex scenarios. Our multidisciplinary team works discreetly and efficiently, supporting clients and their legal advisers through every stage of the divorce forensic investigation lifecycle – from initial scoping to final resolution.
In cases like Michael v Michael, our forensic analysis includes four key steps. First, we map beneficial ownership and control across trustees, nominees and corporate veils. Then, we build end‑to‑end asset‑tracing (on‑ and offshore), including digital asset trails and lifestyle‑resource profiling. We deliver defensible valuations for private companies and alternative assets, reflecting illiquidity and tax. And finally, we support cross‑border enforcement (preservation orders, receiverships, domestication strategies) when compliance falters. Together, these specific steps ensure that every complex scenario becomes transparent.
Engaging specialists is not about distrust – it is about due diligence. In an era where wealth is mobile, digital and often opaque, expert intervention ensures that settlements reflect reality, not assumption. For legal teams, this means stronger cases; for individuals, it means peace of mind.
There’s no doubt that divorce brings a financial reset with the power to shape individual futures. If you are navigating a complex divorce or advising a client who is, and you need clarity on assets and valuations, Control Risks is ready to help. Our role is simple: to provide insight, integrity and innovation when the stakes are at their highest.