Built Environment & Infrastructure Risk Management
-
Search
Divorce is not just the end of a relationship – it is a financial reset that can shape futures. When emotions collide with economics, fairness becomes more than a principle; it becomes a necessity. English law, under the Matrimonial Causes Act (“MCA”) 1973, provides a framework for equitable distribution, but modern wealth structures, spanning global jurisdictions and digital assets, make achieving fairness 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 aspirational – they are essential. These judgments highlight that fairness is nuanced, context-driven and often requires specialist expertise.
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act sets out guiding factors for financial remedies:
As Lord Nicholls observed in White v White (2000):
“There is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles.” This principle introduced the yardstick of equality, ensuring that fairness is measured against objective standards rather than subjective assumptions.
While the law provides structure, reality complicates the picture:
These complexities mean that equitable outcomes require more than legal interpretation – they demand forensic precision and sometimes cross‑border enforcement to preserve assets and orders.
An inequitable settlement can destabilise financial security, prolong litigation and damage reputations especially when hidden assets surface later. Conversely, a fair settlement:
Crucially, the courts will act to preserve and enforce orders where there is non‑compliance, even across borders - up to and including committal applications for contempt of court in extreme cases.
High-value divorces often involve intricate financial landscapes; relying solely on standard disclosure is risky. Forensic accountants and asset-tracing specialists add critical value:
Technology amplifies this capability. Advanced analytics, AI-driven data mining and blockchain forensics enable consultants to uncover what traditional audits miss.
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.
Why it matters:
In the modern divorce market, trusts, nominees and layered vehicles will be penetrated where evidence supports it. Independent forensic analysis is no longer optional - it’s decisive.
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.
What we do in cases like Michael v Michael:
Engaging specialists is not about distrust – it is about diligence. In an era where wealth is mobile, digital and often opaque, expert intervention ensures that settlements reflect reality, not assumption. For legal teams, it means stronger cases; for individuals, it means peace of mind.
If you are navigating a complex divorce or advising a client who is, and 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 highest.
Analysis is based on English law and case law from the courts of England and Wales; not applicable outside this jurisdiction.